Search Results

1. Randell - Omahu 4C4 (2020 ) 86 Takitimu MB 219 (86 TKT 219) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...247) 3 114 Napier MB 46 (114 NP 46) 4 45 Tākitimu MB 47-57, 4 November 2015 (45 TKE 47) 86 Tākitimu MB 221 Ko te hātepe ture o te tono nei Procedural history [7] There are two applications, the first by Stephen Randell for review filed on 7 October 2020 and the second by Olivia Thompson for replacement and removal received 9 October 2020. The review of trust, per section 231 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, was filed on the grounds that there were conflicts of inter...

2. Otago Standards Committee v Zhao [2020] NZLCDT 19 (6 July 2020) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...Conclusion [30] The charge, in any of its alternative formulations, is dismissed. [31] As arranged with counsel at the conclusion of the hearing, any issue of costs shall be dealt with in accordance with the following directions. Mr Morris should file submissions on costs by 31 July 2020 and Ms Woolley shall file her submissions on costs by 14 August 2020. We anticipate the matter would thereafter be dealt with on the papers. DATED at AUCKLAND this 6th day of July 2020...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 10020 v McDonald [2018] NZREADT 67 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...forged documents in order to facilitate a claim for real estate agents commission to which she was not entitled. Remedies that the applicant seeks and the grounds upon which they are sought [2] In the informal application which the applicant has filed she states that she wishes the Tribunal to make an order removing the decisions which found her guilty of misconduct and suspended her license from the Ministry of Justice (READT) website. [3] Additionally, the applicant envisag...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 50 Gate Gourmet New Zealand Ltd v Sandhu [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...the material before the Court) to conclude that the plaintiffs should shoulder the responsibility for that or that the failure to agree should sound in an uplift in costs. Nor am I satisfied that increased costs are justified because of evidence filed by the plaintiffs in relation to the matters at issue. Accordingly I decline to uplift costs as sought by the defendant employees. Disbursements – legal research [12] I turn to the issue of claimed disbursements. The sum of $7,059...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 027 Vortac New Zealand Limited v Western Bay of Plenty District Council [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...District Plan or otherwise could be altered so as not to do so, and that the fence and related materials are not having any adverse effect on the environment in their current form. An affidavit of Grant Stanley Nicholls sworn on 20 December 2021 is filed in support of the application. Mr Nicholls is the 3 director of Vortac, was a co-defendant in respect of the charges and is also subject to the enforcement order. He says that the fence and other matters covered by the order are...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 028 Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Resource Management Act 1991, Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited is to pay Queenstown Lakes District Council the sum of $20,220.00, as a contribution towards its costs. 2 B: Under s286 Resource Management Act 1991, this order may be filed in the District Court at Queenstown for enforcement purposes (if necessary). REASONS Introduction [1] On 3 December 2021, the court declined the appeal lodged by Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited (‘BFDL’) in respect of Topic...

7. [2021] NZACC 80 Norman v ACC (3 June 2021) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Act 2001 provides: A party to an appeal who is dissatisfied with the decision of the District Court as being wrong in law may, with the leave of the District Court, appeal to the High Court. [3] In this case written submissions have been filed on behalf of applicant and respondent. Counsel for the applicant has filed submissions in reply, dated 7 September 2020. Grounds for Appeal [4] In respect of appeal ACR 358/17, the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the following qu...

8. [2021] NZEnvC 076 Wellington City Council v Zhou [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...of the Respondents’ costs application is found in these terms in their submission of 13 April 2021: 26. The Court's decision of 26 March 2021 requires the implementation of the proposal agreed between the Council and the Respondents and filed with the Court on 22 June 2020. 27. Were it not for the opposition of the section [274] parties to this proposal, the further costs incurred by the Respondents between 22 June 2020 and 21 March 2021 would have been avoided. 28. T...

9. Whyte v Bond - Lot 15 Deposited Plan 15948 (2022) 95 Takitimu MB 266 (95 TKT 266) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...agreement was conditional on obtaining Māori Land Court approval for the sale within 6 months. This timeframe has been extended by the parties to the agreement. [5] To satisfy the condition relating to Court confirmation of the sale, the applicant filed this application on 4 November 2021. Because the property is Māori freehold land, the applicant was required to comply with section 147A of the Act, which provides a right of first refusal over the property to the members of the pr...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 241 Vortac New Zealand Limited v Western Bay of Plenty District Council [pdf, 306 KB]

    ...dismissing Vortac’s application to cancel or vary the enforcement order and directing a timetable for any application for costs and any response to such an application.4 On 17 October 2022, Western Bay of Plenty District Council (the Council) filed an application for costs. Costs in the Environment Court Under s 285 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Environment Court may order any party to pay any other party the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the other p...