Search Results

1. ENVC-16 notice of appeal on decision concerning resource consent, transfer of water or discharge permit, certificate of compliance or esplanade strip [docx, 25 KB]

   ...11A of the Resource Management Act 1991. You must lodge the original and 1 copy of this notice with the Environment Court within 15 working days of receiving notice of the decision. The notice must be signed by you or on your behalf. You must pay the filing fee required by regulation 35 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003. You must serve a copy of this notice on the authority that made the decision within 15 working days of receiving notice of the decision....

2. ENVC-22 notice of appeal against decision concerning requirement for designation or heritage order [docx, 25 KB]

   ...11A of the Resource Management Act 1991. You must lodge the original and 1 copy of this notice with the Environment Court within 15 working days of receiving notice of the decision. The notice must be signed by you or on your behalf. You must pay the filing fee required by regulation 35 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003. You must serve a copy of this notice on the requiring authority or heritage protection authority within 15 working days of receiving noti...

3. N v CAC 10058 [2012] NZREADT 18 [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...interest is in an open justice system with the name of the practitioner being published. However balanced against this must be the interests of Ms N. In this particular case we consider that the serious risk of self harm set out in the medical reports filed on behalf of Ms N mean that there should be an order preventing publication of Ms N’s name and any information that might identify her, including the name of the real estate agency. [8] Accordingly the Tribunal makes the follow...

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Lamborn [2011] NZLCDT 30 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...follows. The practitioner’s wrongdoing has at all times been openly acknowledged by him. It arose from inordinate delays in acting on his instructions from a family law client. Despite regular reminders and requests from her Mr Lamborn did not file her proceedings for some three and a half years by which time they were out of time. The delay caused stress and distress to the client who is the complainant in this matter. [4] At the time it transpires the practitioner was u...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Duff [2015] NZLCDT 45 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...importance of such a requirement. (d) The respondent has previously been the subject of a disciplinary sanction in 2005 by the Wellington District Law Society Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal under the Act of 1982 for failing to produce files relating to a cost revision. He was censured, fined $750 and required to pay costs. [9] Counsel for the respondent submitted that there was an element of double jeopardy because the respondent had already been dealt with by the Stand...

6. ET v VL LCRO 190 / 2010 (4 July 2011) [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...Subsequently, on 28 February 2011, the Applicant advised that he wished “to abandon his appeal against the finding of unsatisfactory conduct”. [8] The matter has proceeded by way of a hearing on the papers which includes the Standards Committee’s file and the correspondence between this Office and the parties following receipt of the review application. Review [9] The conduct complained of extended from the time the funds were advanced on 14 December 2006, until registratio...

7. Beattie v Porirua City Council [2011] NZWHT Wellington 18 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...remains, a direct conflict in the evidence as to the responsibility of the various respondents. I am inclined to agree with Mr Robertson on this issue. There are still significant issues in dispute and this has resulted in three different parties filing appeals against the determination issued. [10] In these circumstances I consider that it is unlikely this claim would have settled at a subsequent mediation. Accordingly the costs that the claimants are seeking against the C...

8. Body Corporate 337872 Grace Joel Retirement Village Limited [2013] NZWHT Auckland 16 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...date the claim was lodged. The chief executive however concluded that the claim was not eligible because the complex was a rest home and therefore excluded from the definition of a dwellinghouse. [2] The Grace Joel Retirement Village has filed an application under s 49 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 seeking to review the chief executive’s decision. It says that the units included in the claim are dwellinghouses as they are private residences and ar...

9. Consent Order - Walden, Straits Protection Society & Smart v Auckland Council [pdf, 1021 KB]

   ...Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). [2] Mr Walden lodged an appeal (the Walden appeal) against the Council's decision pursuant to s 156(3) of the LGATPA, which was contingent on the outcome of the High Court judicial review proceedings filed by The Straits Protection Society Inc (CIV-2016-404-002349). The Straits Protection Society Incorporated appeal (the Straits appeal) and the G & C Smart appeal (the Smart appeal) were lodged in July 2017 pursuant to s 156(3) of...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 142 Impulse Fishing v Smith [pdf, 157 KB]

    ...possibly including expert evidence; and (c) determine whether any penalty might be imposed for breaching s 130 of the Employment Relations Act (that is, failing to keep time and wage records). The Challenge [9] In an amended statement of claim filed on 30 May 2017 Impulse challenged all the findings made by the Authority which are adverse to it. The challenge is comprehensive. The relief sought is that the determination be set aside and replaced with a judgment that Mr Smith ab...