Search Results

1. [2019] NZEnvC 203 Director General of Conservation v New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 7.8 MB]

   ........................................................................................... 94 Statutory instruments ............................................................................................... 95 Non-statutory instruments ...................................................................................... 101 K - The Agency's objectives - reasonable necessity ................................................. 101 L - Conditions .......................................

2. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large December 2021 [xlsx, 280 KB]

   ...people Percentage of remand type total Remand type Most serious offence type (ANZSOC division) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 01: Homicide and related offences 67 37 80 104 113 101 115 133 111 104 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Total 02: Acts intended to cause injury 12,948 11,465 9,919 10,033 10,537 10,704 10,424 10,152 9,861 9,181 17% 17% 16% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 138 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...the Court or the Authority, so that there should be no reason why the existence of the privilege should differ between the two bodies. 15 Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand [2013] NZEmpC 85 at [98]-[101]. 16 Defendants’ summary of [98]–[101]. [31] Next, Ms Pidduck submitted that the fact that the Authority is an inquisitorial body does not justify any abrogation of the right to assert a privilege against self- incriminatio...

4. Hill - Otakanini Māori Reservation (2015) 108 Taitokerau MB 76 (108 TTK 76) [pdf, 423 KB]

   ...the applicant does not seek that Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta should be removed due to occupying the marae. From her evidence Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta also provided services for marae beneficiaries and contributed koha to cover her costs while staying there. [101] While obtaining profit or personal benefit from trust property may constitute sufficient grounds for removal there is insufficient evidence for any such finding to be made in this case. [102] The actual ground on which the applicant seek...

5. Lee v Auckland Council [2016] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...affirmative defence of contributory negligence against the Lees. They argued that the Lees’ failure to obtain a LIM report was the real and effective cause of their loss or, alternatively, constituted contributory negligence to a high degree. [101] In its memorandum dated 20 October 2015 GIL advised that it would not take part in the hearing and would abide by the decision of the Tribunal. GIL filed a statement of defence to the claim in which it raised the affirmative defence...

6. Offord v Patel [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...(b) Agreed amount for painting (50% of $9,884.25) $4,942.12 (c) Building consultants and architects fees $31,274.01 (d) Consequential costs (spreadsheet 18 October 2008 less $3,500 deduction for carpet insurance payment) $13,101.14 (e) Accommodation $6,500.00 (f) Filing fee $400.00 7 [16] The Tribunal however has no authority to award costs and expenses of adjudications except in the circumstances set out in s91(1) of the Weathertight Homes Resolut...

7. 2021-11-03 ORC - Legal submissions - PC8 - primary sector hearing [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...Council EnvC Auckland A123/2008 at [116]. 47 Twisted World Limited v Wellington City Council EnvC Wellington W024/2002, 8 July 2002 at [63]; Friends of Pelorus Estuary Inc v Marlborough District Council EnvC Christchurch C004/08, 24 January 2008 at [101]-[102]; and Waimakariri District Council v North Canterbury Clay Target Association (2014] NZEnvC 114 at [23]. (This decision was appealed to the High Court and Court of Appeal, but not on this question). 48 Twisted World Limited v Wel...

8. [2023] NZIACDT 9 - WS v Lawlor (23 March 2023) [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 9 Section 50. 10 Section 51(1). 11 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 12 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 11, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 14 (1) The expression filed by Mr Lawlor did not lead to them being able to apply for residence under the special 2021 instructions. Immigration NZ told them there was no expression in the system (the...

9. Elhassan v Webby [2022] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...genuinely compensatory, and should not be minimal so as to meet the broad policy objectives of the 16 legislation. The damages awarded must be an appropriate response to adequately compensate Mr Elhassan for the behaviour he suffered, see Singh at [101]. [86] The Tribunal finds it helpful to follow the approach of identifying the relevant factors that help classify the seriousness of the case, as was adopted in Singh at [103] to [105]. The type of harassment [87] As is noted in...

10. [2023] NZIACDT 23 – ED v Dai (11 August 2023) [pdf, 245 KB]

    ...and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 14 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, s 50. 15 Section 51(1). 16 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] and [151]. 17 Z, above n 16 at [97], [101]–[102] and [112]. 14 [80] The complainant confirms that when she first met FN in a supermarket on 30 June 2019, FN told her that she was an immigration agent and could deal with any visa applications. [81] The complainant spoke...