Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 101 Otago Regional Council - Urban Provisions [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...Final Plan Change 8 Parts A, G and H decisions on submissions’. REASONS Introduction [1] The Regional Plan: Water for Otago (‘RPW’) was notified in 1998 and made operative on 1 January 2004, predating all versions of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (‘NPS-FM’). It has not been subject to a full review since it was notified. [2] The entirety of the RPW is intended to be reviewed in the preparation of a new Land and Water Regional Plan (‘PLWRP...

2. [2022] NZEnvC 101 Otago Regional Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...Final Plan Change 8 Parts A, G and H decisions on submissions’. REASONS Introduction [1] The Regional Plan: Water for Otago (‘RPW’) was notified in 1998 and made operative on 1 January 2004, predating all versions of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (‘NPS-FM’). It has not been subject to a full review since it was notified. [2] The entirety of the RPW is intended to be reviewed in the preparation of a new Land and Water Regional Plan (‘PLWRP...

3. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...enables us to determine the application and hence, find this is not an appropriate case for exercise of the discretion in ss 104(6) and (7), as to information that is not adequate. It was not a matter of dispute that there are no relevant national policy statements, national environmental standards or regulations. Hence we reference only relevant categories of statutory instruments listed in s 104(1)(b). 11 Preliminary questions on activity status, alternatives and the permitted basel...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...enables us to determine the application and hence, find this is not an appropriate case for exercise of the discretion in ss 104(6) and (7), as to information that is not adequate. It was not a matter of dispute that there are no relevant national policy statements, national environmental standards or regulations. Hence we reference only relevant categories of statutory instruments listed in s 104(1)(b). 11 Preliminary questions on activity status, alternatives and the permitted basel...

5. Stephen Brown (dated 6 June 2017) [pdf, 15 MB]

   Solicitors Acting: KR Price / SJ Mutch ChanceryGreen PO Box 47516, Ponsonby 1144 +64 9 357 0600 karen.price@chancerygreen.com / steve.mutch@chancerygreen.com ash1_ash1-1_117.docx BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2016-CHC-47 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 120 of the RMA BETWEEN BLUESKIN ENERGY LTD Appellant AND DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDE

6. McClelland v Schindler Lifts NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 45 [pdf, 157 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHRRT 45 Reference No. HRRT 031/2014 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN BENJAMIN RAYMOND MCCLELLAND PLAINTIFF AND SCHINDLER LIFTS NZ LIMITED DEFENDANT AT CHRISTCHURCH BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms WV Gilchrist, Member Ms ST Scott, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr V Corbett, agent for plaintiff Mr CA Andrews (South Island Manager) and Ms M Pabustan (HR National Manage

7. [2018] NZEmpC 79 Hines v Eastland Port Ltd [pdf, 513 KB]

   PAUL HINES v EASTLAND PORT LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 79 [16 July 2018] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 79 EMPC 14/2018 EMPC 47/2018 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN PAUL HINES Plaintiff AND EASTLAND PORT LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 March, 4 April, 9-13 April and 24 April 2018 (heard at Auckland, Wellington and Gisborne) Appearances:

8. Brown v REAA & Wealleans [2011] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...the first time. [23] This procedure seems somewhat clumsy when applied to appeals on a decision to lay a charge. This is because the hearing of a charge requires the Tribunal to consider the oral and written evidence presented to it and any defence raised to the charge and reach a decision under s 110. That is the hearing of the charge acts as a rehearing of the facts. [24] Mr Hodge submitted that the role of the Complaints Assessment Committee is simply to act as a screening...

9. Ryan v CAC 20002 & Skinner [2013] NZREADT 45 [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...Complaint [4] On 23 March 2011 the appellant approached Harcourts in Queenstown for help in selling her gift shop business, Q Queenstown Ltd. The licensee was recommended to her by Harcourts as one of its licensed salespersons. [5] In her initial statements of complaint, the appellant identified two “specific major areas of concern”, as she put it, namely: [a] negligence with an offer from a Mr and Mrs Anderson, and [b] inadequate communication with a Mr Sunni Pallavi Kaur. [6...

10. Steele v Board of Trustees of Salisbury School [2012] NZHRRT 20 [pdf, 83 KB]

    ...information about him held by the Board of Trustees of Salisbury School, the Board failed to make a decision on that request within the time limit fixed by s 40(1) of the Privacy Act 1993 and thereby interfered with his privacy. The relief sought in the statement of claim is: (a) Internet, telephone and travel costs of approximately $100. 2 (b) $2,000 for “the interference with the care of my child”. (c) $5,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. [2] W...