Search Results

1. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Valli and Hughes [2014] NZHRRT 58 [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: (d) an order that the defendant perform any...

2. E35 Peter Kensington - Landscape - EIC - Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...Design Requirements in Annexure C, which shall include the following: (i) Make-good and treatment of the wharf surface with a consistent concrete surface similar to that of the 1585 18 Halsey Wharf Extension, suitable for activities permitted by the Auckland Unitary Plan; (ii) Any retention of existing or any proposed services; and (iii) Any public realm element, for example furniture, lighting and handrails. Public realm elements, including any permanent structur...

3. LCRO 2/2019 RCN and OCN as Trustees v MA, JS, LB and GD (27 May 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...majority decide in favour of a certain course of action. We recommend that trustees’ decisions be recorded and signed by all trustees. If a trustee is temporarily unavailable through illness or overseas travel, that trustee may, if the circumstances permit, appoint an attorney to act in his or her stead. [26] The Committee noted that “no advice appears to have been sought by the complainants regarding the Construction Contracts Act when the Trust was formed”.5 It further noted...

4. Walters - Horahora 1B4A2D1 (2011) 22 Taitokerau MB 209 (22 TTK 209) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...Council decision in Man O’ War Bay Station v Auckland City Council [2001] 2 NZLR 26, arguing that the threshold of ―the gate being ‗thrown open‘ to the public‖ has not been met because the sandspit blocks were specifically excluded from being permitted access across the then 1A4D to the roadway. [64] Counsel for the Climo Estate with respect to the issue of proprietary estoppel argued that no expectation was given by her client or anyone else to NCIL that they would have the...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 26 A Labour Inspector v Victoria 88 Ltd [pdf, 484 KB]

   ...Freeman shall not enter into an employment agreement as an employer, or be an officer of an employer; or be involved in the hiring or employment of employees for a period of three years. [38] The order should be made under s 142M(1)(a), which permits an order to be made where there is a declaration of breach, as here. Given the time limitation issues referred to above,25 I do not consider that it is appropriate to rely on s 142M(1)(b), because although there have in fact been pers...

6. 2021-04-11 - Evidence Summary - Christina Bright 12 April 2021 [pdf, 307 KB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY UNDER Resource Management Act 1991 (Act). IN THE MATTER OF The Water Permits Plan Change - Plan Change 7, being part of a proposal of national significance directed by the Minister for the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA SUMMARY EVIDENCE - CHRISTINA ELYSE BRIGHT 11 April 2021 1 Introduction 1. My full name is Christ...

7. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC evidence chief Sam Shumane [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...berth holders, will be allowed to enter the restricted area at the cul-de-sac. I agree with Mr Mitchell that such vehicles will be able to enter the marina’s parking facility for drop-off and pick-up while non-berth holders will not even be permitted to enter the cul-de-sac for any drop-off or pick-up. 30. While I maintain the view that this level of drop-off and pick-up activities will occur within the marina’s parking facility I no longer have the view that this volume is in...

8. LCRO 195/2017 LH v SR and HP (19 March 2019) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...lawyer’s failure to comply with realistic timetables for filing of documents set by a Committee. [44] Ms LH had been granted an adjournment to allow her further time to provide her first submission in response. She did not file within the time permitted by the first extension granted. [45] The notice of hearing allowed adequate time for the parties to provide response to the issues identified in the notice of hearing. The issues as framed in the notice of hearing, were cou...

9. [2017] NZEnvC 126 T Barrett v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 9 MB]

   ...there is, overall, more distance to the boundary except adjacent to Oxley Close towards the eastern end. [38] In considering the Council's current provision, the constraint on the southern side of the airfield is less stringent, and would permit a higher building closer to the southern boundary, particularly at Oxley Close. The justification for this is unclear, and it appears to be based upon an assumption that the safety margin at that end of the field is met by the box displ...

10. Parininihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation- Section 53 Block IX, Opunake Survey District (2005) 159 Aotea MB 146 (159 AOT 146) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...decisions upheld lower Court refusals to change the status of Maori freehold to general land, the Maketu 2A2 judgment did the opposite. The Court also acknowledged in Maketu that the intention of Parliament in enacting sections 135 and 136 was to permit the change of status where, following consideration of the principles and objectives of the Act, the Court was still satisfied that there had been compliance with those sections. Put another way, while the Act is premised on the principle...