Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 051 Hamilton City Council v Waikato District Council [pdf, 735 KB]

   ...Regional Policy Statement and National Policy Statement on Urban Development; c. The development does not constitute an integrated, sustainable, or planned or an efficient use of land; d. Lack of clarity as to exactly what types of activities are permitted to establish; e. Omission of effects on compact urban form and cross-boundary effects in respect of Hamilton City from the matters of discretion; f. Potential for significant adverse effects on Hamilton’s transport networks an...

2. E66 Ian Munro - Urban Design - EIC - VHHL [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...for lighting; and b. luminated (back-lit) and all variable message or LED screen signage will be covered by the Event Management Plan or subject to separate resource consent or signage bylaw approval. 2.6. No more than two flag poles are permitted for each base (on the base building or its associated yard area), with each: a. extending to not more than 20 metres above finished ground or wharf level; and b. able to accommodate a flag with a total area of not more than 30...

3. Standards Committees v Deliu [2016] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 441 KB]

   ...29 LCDT 010/10, [2016] NZLCDT 25, at [58]. 30 Ibid at [53]-[56]. 21 the merits and instead slips into attacks on opponents and judicial officers. This appears to be an ingrained pattern. [72] Lawyers must not be permitted to behave in the manner demonstrated in this case, such as by attacking Judges and disrupting processes. Acting for lay clients in the manner proven in the incompetence charges, including causing them to incur unnecessary cost, is n...

4. [2024] NZREADT 23 – CAC 2106 v Hu (29 July 2024) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...but would not dispute that such a figure was too low. The vendors’ price expectation was $27–30M, though they were flexible. [69] The vendors were not aware of any commission sharing arrangement between Mr Hu and the purchaser and did not permit any such arrangement. Rui Kong and Boon Teck Soh [70] There are affirmations from Rui Kong (15 September 2023) and Boon Teck Soh (19 September and 20 November 2023), both certified translators, as to translating the text messages...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 243 Ohau Protection Society Incorporated v Waitaki District Council [pdf, 16 MB]

   ...adjoining landform. Rehabilitation works must be undertaken within 3 months following the completion of physical works in anyone area. 28. It is prohibited to undertake any earthworks or excavations within 20 metres of any waterway, except where permitted by the District Plan. 29. The consent holder must ensure that suitable sediment control and soil run-off measures are in place during the earthworks phase of the construction . Review of Consent 30. The Waitaki District Council may,...

6. Witana v Tau - Omapere Taraire E (2019) 191 Taitokerau MB 1 (191 TTK 1) [pdf, 535 KB]

   ...beneficiaries. The beneficiaries must all be sui juris, but it is doubtful if this method is available if a co-trustee will not consent. (6) Payment into the Treasury. This is in effect a method of retirement. Sections 77-79 of the Trustee Act 1956 permit any persons holding money belonging to any trust, or the majority of them if the concurrence of the remainder cannot be obtained, to pay the trust money into the Treasury to the account of the Registrar of the High Court, wher...

7. Berry & Ors as Trustees of the Burns Berry Trust v Lay [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...report gave no detailed reasoning for this recommendation, other than noting on a photograph that there was no gutter provided to the flat roof, and it was ponding and a finding that the roof construction “may barely comply with the building permit”. 12.3 The building consent drawings show this flat roof as being Chevaline Dexx on 17.5mm CpD plywood laid to falls to gutter. The degree of fall is not stated. This flat roof was finished with Butynol rubber membrane, but no is...

8. PR v HG 69/2016 LCRO [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...statement of claim was issued. (d) The Committee suggested obtaining pre-trial discovery when that was problematic and not in accordance with the High Court rules. (e) Ms PR also asked to be heard at the hearing before the Committee but was not permitted to do so. [112] Ms PR asks this Office to reverse the Committee’s decision as to outcome and penalty. [113] Ms PR refers to Ms XY’s view that the amount of $300,000 was deliberately understated by both parties to the deed, M...

9. Directory of Official Information J-L [pdf, 775 KB]

   ...• leveraging the company’s core competencies by entering into long-term leasing of land for dairy and sheep and beef farming • optimising the company’s genetic capability by marketing its genetically superior sheep, beef and deer • to permit wind farming on its properties as an adjunct to its core farming business and where appropriate, for the purpose of supplying primarily its own energy needs, to develop, operate and own small scale wind turbines on its properties, whether...

10. Marshall v IDEA Services Ltd (Privacy Act) [2020] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 353 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 act...