Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 218 Aratiatia Livestock Limited v Southland Regional Council [pdf, 9 MB]

   ...commence with an apology to the parties for the lateness of this decision, given the timetable is running on evidence filing. [2] The two entities are Waiau Rivercare Group ('WRG') and Waiau River Liaison Committee ('WRLC'). Each filed notices under s274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('s274 notices') to join the following appeals ('the five appeals'): (a) Meridian Energy Limited (ENV-2018-CHC-38); (b) Aratiatia Livestock Limited (ENV-201...

2. Godfrey v Harvey [2019] NZHRRT 6 [pdf, 434 KB]

   (1) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF THE CHAIRPERSON Reference No. HRRT 039/2016 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN OLIVIA MINH GODFREY PLAINTIFF AND GLENDA MAREE HARVEY FIRST DEFENDANT AND PHILIP GEORGE HARVEY SECOND DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Ms MA Roche, Co-Chairperson Ms LJ Alaeinia JP, Member Mr MJM Keefe QSM JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr G Robins and Ms J Emmerson for plaintiff Mr P...

3. LCRO 34/2018 GR v [Area] Standards Committee [X] [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...mistake based on information received from third parties (as he recalled he thought he had discussions about the matter with LINZ staff and, possibly, the surveyor); (e) He did not wilfully mislead anyone. Application for review [35] Mr GR filed an application for review on 27 February 2018. The outcome principally sought is reversal of the Standards Committee determination. [36] Mr GR provided his grounds for review the following day, on 28 February 2018. They are that: (a)...

4. LCRO 79/2019 PS v NR (28 May 2020) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...consider Ms PS’ allegation that she would not have been liable for costs awarded against her had she not breached the temporary protection order, which, as noted earlier, she says she did at Mr NR’s direction. Application for review [25] Ms PS filed an application for review on 20 June 2019. She says the Committee did not “address [her] main complaint”, namely, that Mr NR “told [her] to contact [Mr UM] directly” thereby “placing [her] in breach of the protection ord...

5. Body Corporate 81738 v Wellington City Council [2010] NZWHT Wellington 15 [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...application under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 was made on 3 December 2002. [3] Some evidence was heard in those proceedings, particularly from Mr Blundell before they were abandoned with the new applications being filed with this Tribunal between 1 August 2008 and 24 September 2008 under the WHRS Act 2006. [4] Both buildings leaked. The claimants proceeded to have repairs carried out to the two blocks. Tenders were sought and the remediation wa...

6. UC v YW LCRO 165/2013 (30 November 2016) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...action was neither necessary nor appropriate. [XX] Standards Committee’s conclusions [30] On all matters therefore the Standards Committee elected to take no further action, pursuant to s 138(2) of the Act. Application for Review [31] Mr UC filed an application to review the Committee’s decision on 14 June 2013. Mr UC submits that:  The Standards Committee failed to consider cases he had provided in which lawyers had been disciplined for “saying naughty words about...

7. Responsiveness to Resource Management Issues - a New Zealand perspective a paper by Commissioner K Edmonds [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...authority did). In response to the above, the OVERSEER model is now used to verify that next year’s farming activities will not increase nutrient losses when compared to a benchmark. The benchmark is the losses modelled for a specified Overseer input file (the original input parameter file based on the consented activity) which is identified in the conditions of consent. Following conversion of the farm to spray irrigation, the same version of the OVERSEER model is run twice e...

8. Te Manutukutuku Issue 72 [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...to complete its hearings early next year and Porirua ki Manawatū will shortly start its next round of hearings. A substantial number of local his­ torical claims have fallen outside the Tribunal’s district inquiries, often because they were filed too late for inclusion. In areas where the Tribunal has not held a district inquiry, some have fallen outside Treaty settle­ ments and current negotiations. For these remaining historical claims, the Kia ora tatou. It is again my pleas...

9. 2021-05-21 ORC & OWRUG - MOC - identifying issues for determination regarding dams [pdf, 447 KB]

   ...(philip.maw@wynnwilliams.co.nz / michelle.mehlhopt@wynnwilliams.co.nz) 1 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 1 The purpose of this Memorandum is to respond to the Court’s direction that counsel for the Regional Council and OWRUG confer and file a memorandum setting out the issues for the Court’s determination regarding the approach to large irrigation dams in PC7.1 2 Counsel have conferred and address the following below: (a) The relief sought by OWRUG and Falls Dam Company...

10. [2021] NZEnvC 113 Minister of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 1.5 MB]

    ...working days; B: Parties are then to provide their written responses to the Council within a further 1 S working days; C: If any matters are still in disagreement the parties are to seek to resolve those differences but if not, the Council is to file its preferred provisions with an explanation for the differences and reasoning for each of the parties within a further 20 working days. D: Given the narrow areas of difference, we anticipate this appeal should be resolved with a co...