Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 040 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...6.3.3.3 s293 directions Decision 2.13 _______________________________________________________________ 2 A: Directions are made for Queenstown Lakes District Council to amend the PDP by incorporating Pol 6.3.3.3 as set out in Annexure 1 and to file a reporting memorandum as to that once completed. REASONS Introduction [1] Proposed amendments are sought to extend the application of Pol 6.3.3.3 so that it applies to land within ONFs in addition to ONLs. This will trigger the...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 1 GF v OO [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...CHRISTINA INGLIS Introduction [1] This judgment resolves an issue of costs which has arisen in the context of a claim brought by an employee whose employment was terminated following a decision not to get vaccinated. The applicant had filed a statement of problem in the Employment Relations Authority; unsuccessfully sought to have it removed to the Court; and filed an application for special leave to remove the matter to the Employment Court, which was subsequently withdraw...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 123 20 District Health Boards v New Zealand Nurses Organisation [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...Appearances: S Hornsby-Geluk and B Locke, counsel for applicants R Harrison QC and J Lawrie, counsel for respondent Judgment: 6 August 2021 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS Introduction [1] Twenty District Health Boards filed proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority against the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. The proceedings arise in the context of industrial action which is currently on foot, and national strike action scheduled for 19 Augus...

4. Smith v Genesis Energy Limited (Strike-Out) [2023] NZHRRT 24 [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...cited as Smith v Genesis Energy Limited (Strike-Out) [2023] NZHRRT 24] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2023] NZHRRT 24 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 [2] Frank Energy deny Mr Smith’s claim and raise jurisdictional issues. [3] Since filing his statement of claim, Mr Smith has failed to engage with the Tribunal in order to progress his claim further. The Tribunal must now determine whether Mr Smith’s failure to progress his claim has become an abuse of process and shou...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 184 WFT Finance Limited v Waikato District Council [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...Management Ltd (CGML) advising that it had developed a working relationship with Wayne Wright and WFT Property and as a result have been entrusted to undertake the development of 7 Munro Road, Pokeno. Mr Sutherland requested a copy of “any related files, reports, decisions, plans etc that would assist … in getting up and running with this case and determining where the appeals process got to?”. The email set out a timeline of events based on a brief analysis of documents CGML...

6. NN v BT [2024] NZDT 155 (18 April 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...phone at no cost because on inspection it found that one of the pins in the charging port was missing. 4. NN does not want a new phone. He simply asks that BT repair his defective phone. At the hearing, he also asked that BT pay the cost of the filing fee to bring the matter to the Tribunal. 5. The issues to resolve this claim are: a. Are there faults with the [phone] and if so, what is the cause of the faults? b. Are these covered by the BT warranty? c. Is the [phone] of...

7. DT v KI [2023] NZDT 294 (19 July 2023) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...of the Disputes Tribunal hearing there is no jurisdiction for the District Court to reach a finding different to that of the Referee. A Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have...

8. QI v KI & L Ltd [2024] NZDT 629 (11 July 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...2. QI says that allegations came to light in 2023 that KI has been fraudulently signing engineering reports over several years. 3. QI now seeks an order from the Tribunal for $2,735.00 being $2,645.00 for the fees paid to L Ltd, and $90.00 filing fee for this claim. QI says that L Ltd and KI are both liable as KI was the sole director and shareholder of L Ltd. 4. The issues to be decided are as follows: (a) Did KI and L Ltd engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in their deal...

9. IN v EW [2025] NZDT 3 (10 April 2025) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accepted. If you wish to reserve a right of appeal you may therefore wish to file an appea...

10. Hona v Marino - Oruanui A (2024) 319 Waiariki MB 11 (319 WAR 11) [pdf, 258 KB]

    ...August 2024 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ T M WARA Judgment of Judge T M Wara 319 Waiariki MB 12 Whakawā tuarua mō Sara Hona Rehearing for Sara Hona [1] This decision concerns an application filed by Sara Terehia Hona seeking a rehearing pursuant to s 43 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. [2] The rehearing concerns an application filed by Sara seeking the removal of Alice Te Whetu Marino as a trustee of the Oruanui A Trust, an...