Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 089 Shundi Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 14 MB]

   ...to be utilised for dust suppression during earthworks. This shall include the use of a backflow prevention device to prevent contamination of Council’s potable water supply. (iv) No further signs, such as window signs or sandwich boards, are permitted by this resource consent. (v) This site may contain archaeological material. Under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, the permission of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga must be sought prior to the modificati...

2. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...has not included costs for replacing the deck joists. I am however satisfied that the scope of work supporting Mr Browne’s costs is appropriate and most likely will be required by the Council in order to Page | 13 obtain a building permit to repair the decks. I therefore conclude that the damage that has occurred as a consequence of defects with the installation of the deck is $45,315 after adjusting Mr Browne’s figures for a GST rate of 15%. Windows [32] A...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 101 GF v Comptroller of Customs [pdf, 513 KB]

   ...the Court be satisfied that a brief of evidence contains a hearsay statement and that none of the exceptions in the Evidence Act applies. [39] But the fact that this Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence does not mean that parties are permitted to call any evidence they like. As has been acknowledged in a number of judgments, the rules contained within the Evidence Act may well be of assistance,34 including in assessing whether proposed evidence meets the relevance thresho...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 205 Ahureka Trustees no 2 Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.5 MB]

   ...AUP the height to boundary controls that previously applied to Countryside Living areas generally have been removed. That provides for dwellings in Countryside Living areas to be as close/closer (?) than previously, and is more liberal than the permitted activity standards for medium intensity residential urban areas. 281. I have considered the Environment Court decision in Cornerstone v Rodney District Council where the Court declined to characterise certain buildings as inherently...

5. D v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2020] CEIT-2019-0037 [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...there is extensive decay in the floor timbers behind the shower that predates the 2003 renovations, indicating the possible presence of a long-term leak;9 (b) Mr McGunnigle has identified a roofing detail immediately above the shower which he says permits water to enter the fabric of the building; (c) one of the photographs produced by D shows that Max Contracts repaired a roof slate immediately above the shower; and (d) the removal of the bathroom tile by Max Contracts, which is m...

6. LCRO 81/2018 QQ v RR (26 November 2019) [pdf, 548 KB]

   ...(CA), Fletcher Moulton LJ was considering the power of the Court to strike out an action as vexatious and observed that: The Court has a right to stop an action at this stage if it is wantonly brought without the shadow of an excuse, so that to permit the action to go through its ordinary stages up to trial would be to allow the defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the action was baseless. Importantly his honour did...

7. LCRO 239/2020 DP v FJ obo RK (25 June 2021) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...from collateral matters. … Clearly prohibited is the hiding of a premium on disbursements and thereby making a margin on those amounts. In Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v P Currie the Tribunal made it clear that such conduct was not permitted. [Citation omitted] [105] I am not suggesting that Mr DP was engaging in the type of conduct that was before the Tribunal in the above case, which concerned invoicing clients for disbursements which had not been incurred. Neverth...

8. [2024] NZEnvC 143 Cooper v Kaipara District Council [pdf, 857 KB]

   ...(a) 12.10.1a Excavation and Fill: Earthworks over a footprint of 8.315ha comprising approximately 50,000m3 cut and 50,000m3 fill predominantly to facilitate the construction of the internal roading network is proposed. This does not comply with the permitted thresholds for the Rural Zone, including those that specifically relate to the Mangawhai Harbour Overlay. Land use consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to this rule. Activity status [12] Overall, the...

9. Environment Court annual review 2014 [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...border between ONL and VAL sat. The Court determined that it ran through the site and so both VAL and ONL criteria had to be applied. It was considered that the effects would be significantly adverse (in both categories) and that the existing and permitted buildings on the site represented saturation for that landscape. For the purposes of the 104D gateway, the overall effects were more than minor and the proposal was found to be contrary to the plan. Its negative effects outweighed i...

10. [2024] NZLVT 062 - Edwards v Minister for Land Information (29 November 2024) [pdf, 3.4 MB]

    ...the alignment of the route has been determined, it will be necessary to convert any proposed Future Urban zone which is located to the west of this route, to a Rural zoning. It also recommended that no further subdivision of these Land Units is permitted until the alignment of the State Highway 1 bypass has been set (possibly 2 to 3 years from now). 52. I also address the 2004 Warkworth Structure Plan…: The Structure Plan addresses the Regional Growth Strategy at 5.2.3 and 6.2. Th...