Search Results

1. Justice Matters July 2019 [pdf, 3.5 MB]

   ...Act 1991. The Court largely deals with appeals about the contents of regional and district plans and appeals arising out of applications for resource consents. Consent applications may be for land use; a subdivision; a coastal, water or discharge permit; or a combination of these. The Court usually sits with a Judge and one or more of its Environment Commissioners. The Commissioners have expertise in many areas including planning and engineering. The Commissioners also conduct mediati...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 72 Horton v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...explanation as Mr Purser had concluded. The evidence is clear that Mr Horton spoke to no less than four people about the iron, offered to pay for it, sought permission from the person he was told to approach, was given permission and given a permit to remove the iron from the Fonterra site. In all the 5 [1993] (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 855 (CA). circumstances I find that Fonterra has not discharged the burden justifying M...

3. [2017] NZEmpC 40 XYZ v ABC [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...concerns that person is said to have expressed to the Chief Executive about a return to work pending the outcome of the process that is currently underway. [54] While the plaintiff has said that she would act with the utmost professionalism if permitted to return to work, and would not oppose a temporary change in reporting lines, that would be unlikely to meet all of the concerns that have been raised, including by other staff. The defendant’s concerns about a possible (inten...

4. [2022] NZREADT 18 – QQ v REA NQ (7 September 2022) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...APPEAL 66. The appellant sought to produce evidence to the Tribunal that was not before the Committee and also applied to cross-examine a number of witnesses. The Tribunal issued a Ruling on 25 November 2019 declining to admit the new evidence but permitting him to cross-examine the licensee as to his knowledge of the lounge ceiling leak and his disclosure of defects. In Ruling (2) on 22 September 2020, the Tribunal declined the appellant’s application to adduce three videos in evide...

5. LCRO 175/2020 PM obo MNO Limited v FS and BL (22 April 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...merit whatsoever in this argument. Although I have not heard evidence on the subject, I would be reasonably confident that Mr BL was aware – as I imagine most lawyers are – that commercial leases of the type between [MNO] and [XY], do not permit a tenant to claim a set-off against rent. [99] Moreover, even if Mr BL was unaware of this, as a matter of law there was no dispute between [MNO] and [XY] in relation to the rent that was owed. Timing [100] In his email to the Case Ma...

6. Ngunguru Coastal Investments Ltd v Climo - Horahora 1B4A2D1 and others [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 80 (2012 APPEAL 80) [pdf, 494 KB]

   ...into account those matters outlined in s 320(4). The Court must also notify the relevant owners of a s 320 application and in exercising its discretion may also take into account the views of the owners. To do otherwise would be tantamount to permitting an alienation of Māori land without the owners’ knowledge or possible input. That offends against the spirit, intention and principles of the Act. 2012 Maori Appellate Court MB 101 [72] On this issue we are of the view t...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 051 Perjuli Developments Limited v Waikato District Council [pdf, 14 MB]

   ...the RMA and must include the reasons for your objection. If you decide to lodge an objection to this consent, please note that you cannot lodge a section 223/224 application for subdivision. Compliance with conditions Your resource consent permits the land use to be established at the site as long as the activity complies with the stated conditions on an ongoing basis. It is important that you fully understand and comply with all the conditions of your consent. Postal Address...

8. CAC20006 v Spencer [2013] NZREADT 8 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...complainants accepted that offer. The complainants also signed an offer for Lot 44 Alderton Park of $90,000, including a special condition that the vendor would provide $20,000 towards building costs should the purchaser commence construction of a permitted and approved dwelling on the lot within 12 months. [8] The agreement for sale of the complainant’s property was not conditional on their offer for Lot 44 Alderton Park being accepted. That offer was presented to Mr Brown on 29 J...

9. LCRO 200/2020 SK and WP v AQ (27 October 2023) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...that it is desirable in the public interest that this decision be published in a form that does not identify the parties or others involved in the matter and otherwise in accordance with the LCRO Publication Guidelines. [157] The parties are permitted to disclose the full text of this decision in evidence in any Court or Tribunal proceeding commenced for recovery of sums owing by the respondent. DATED this 27th day of OCTOBER 2023 _____________________ FR Goldsmith Legal...

10. CAC 304 v Chapman [2018] NZREADT 6 [pdf, 300 KB]

    ...earthquake on 22 February 2011. Disputed evidence (a) Placards Evidence [28] Following the earthquake, buildings were assessed for damage, and identified by green (able to be occupied), yellow (medium damage and risk, with only restricted use permitted), and red (unsafe to occupy) placards. There is a dispute as to what colour placards were placed on the building (in particular, the Southern Ink premises and an adjacent door (“the central doorway”)), and what informatio...