Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 258 Southland District Council v Chartres [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...is guided by a body of general principles developed through the case law and recorded in the court's Practice Note and that guidance is useful in this context.7 This is bolstered in the High Court in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd (‘BW Offshore’), which highlighted the importance of not being inconsistent, when exercising the discretion, with well- established principles.8 In particular, as part of a wider civil justice system, the court...

2. Dr Roger Grace - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 667 KB]

   ...include intertidal and sub-tidal benthic ecology, long-term monitoring of marine life in coastal and shallow benthic areas, including marine protected areas with various levels of protection, and effects of dredging and dredge spoil disposal and offshore sand extraction. My main experience has been gained in northern New Zealand. 5. In the mid 1960's as a student I spent two separate summer weeks camping at Mayor Island, snorkelling and diving amongst what was then abundant and...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 152 Ngai Taiwhakaea v Whakatane District Council [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...settlement where compromise could have been reasonably expected; and 10 DFC NZ Ltd v Bielby [1991] 1 NZLR 587. [11] 6 (e) where a party takes a technical or unmeritorious point. The High Court in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd11 signalled a potential departure from the Bielby factors in favour of the High Court costs principles. However, this Court has identified concerns with the approach in BW Offshore and has accordingly conti...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 093 Waimea Plains Landscape Preservation Society Inc v Gore District Council [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...of the applicant.12 [16] The court has previously undertaken an assessment of “blameworthiness” when determining whether to award costs against councils.13 However, the recent High Court decision of Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore 6 Environment Court Practice Note, at clause 6.6. 7 Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] NZHC 2577 at [19]. 8 Foodstuffs (Otago Southland) Properties Ltd v Dunedin City Council [1996] N...

5. [2020] NZIACDT 29 - Immigration New Zealand (Carley) v Penty (6 July 2020) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...responsible for overseeing her work. [21] Furthermore, all of the clients involved had been successful and she notes that no complaint to the Authority had been made by any of them. 5 [22] Ms Penty contends that the arrangement with the offshore companies had ceased prior to the complaint being referred to the Tribunal. Novo had put in place new processes to ensure that there was no reoccurrence of the earlier wrongdoing. [23] It is submitted by Ms Penty that the appropr...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 211 Pyne Gould Corp Ltd v West [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...for costs. [5] In his supporting affidavit of 9 October 2014 Mr West deposes: 10.1 PGC has sold all its NZ based assets and therefore will have no cash in New Zealand. 10.2 PGC’s remaining material assets comprise ownership and shares in offshore entities Torchlight and EPIC. 10.3 There are now a significant number of regulatory and legal issues facing Torchlight and EPIC and PGC Group. The regulatory investigations have now been expanded to regulators in both New Zealan...

7. [2020] NZIACDT 21 - Immigration New Zealand (Carley) v Penty (18 May 2020) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...documents. IPS/BNAC staff were intermediaries only. This ensured the clients had a thorough understanding of the requirements. This practice was in complete compliance with the Code. It was difficult to avoid using an intermediary when dealing with offshore clients who did not respond to attempts to communicate with them. [50] In her explanation, Ms Penty said that some of the examples relied on by the Authority were of communications between the staff and employers. IPS/BNAC was...

8. [2019] NZCAA 13 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 384 KB]

   ...The appellant [1] The appellant is part of an international group of companies; it is identified with a nutritional product (the product), which has a strong brand identity. The appellant is incorporated in New Zealand, and wholly owned by an offshore parent company. This decision will not identify the appellant, and it will not contain specific financial details. I accordingly direct that no financial information in this proceeding is to be disclosed, beyond the parties and their...

9. IAA v Angon [2012] NZIACDT 62 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...person Date Issued: 28 September 2012 2 DECISION Introduction [1] This matter is an “own motion complaint” presented by the Registrar pursuant to section 46 of the Act. It involves the procedures for an offshore Philippines-based adviser dealing with potential migrants located in the Philippines. [2] The issue of concern is that unlicensed staff dealt with clients, and Mr Angon who is licensed issued a certificate to Immigration New Zealand...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

    ...be met to justify the award of costs against a public body. Unless the public body has failed to perform its duties or it has acted unreasonably, the standard will not be met. [26] Justice Cooke held in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd that the underlying reason for the high standard is as follows: 14 When a decision-making body exercises statutory powers, it may be appropriate for it to appear and address evidence and submissions justifying its dec...