Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 071 Hamilton City Council v Global Metals Solutions Limited [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...presiding judge was not present at the hearing, Commissioner Gysberts, who was present at the substantive hearings on this matter, corroborated these submissions. The noise experts for all the parties met at length and produced a joint witness statement which acknowledged ongoing breaches of the noise rules of the district plan. Moreover, throughout the proceedings, all parties acknowledged an ongoing and persistent breach of the applicable District Plan rules. However, the responde...

2. [2022] NZEnvC 187 Transpower New Zealand Ltd v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 934 KB]

   ...outstanding matter for this topic which will remain to be dealt with at a later date. Other relevant matters [3] 2 3 A number of parties gave notice of an intention to become a party to these ENV-2020-CHC-68. ENV-2020-CHC-67 Environmental Defence Society Incorporated, ENV-2020-CHC- 58 Federated Farmers of New Zealand, ENV-2020-CHC-71 Horticulture New Zealand, ENV-2020-CHC-50 Manawa Energy Limited (formerly Trustpower Limited). 3 appeals under s27 4 RMA. I am satisfied th...

3. Mr G v Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 [2024] NZLCDT 28 (11 September 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Court against refusal to grant name suppression, he suggested that the hearing would reveal a very different complexion to the case: that it was driven by sibling rivalry. We understand the unhappiness of the sibling relationship, but the promised defence never emerged. To the contrary, Mr G admitted the essential facts of that aspect of the charge regarding his unilateral withdrawals of funds from the Trust and he stated:8 “at no stage have I blamed [my sister] for anything exc...

4. ZQN Apartments TRI 2021-100-001 Procedural Order 9 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...November 2021). 6 [24] I am satisfied that the apartments were not built in accordance with the fourth respondent’s plans and design. The design issues suggested by the first respondent are not relevant in any event because of the limitation defence raised by the fourth respondent and concentrated upon in the first respondent’s opposition submissions. [25] The first respondent expressed material opposition to the limitation defence as there is currently conflicting High...

5. NZ BORA Advice: Civil Aviation Bill [pdf, 368 KB]

   ...proportionate to the seriousness of the potential safety risks. On conviction, a person is liable for a fine not exceeding $30,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. The offences require an element of intent, with the general defence of reasonable excuse for failing to disclose medical information. 14. On this basis, we consider that any limits within the Bill on the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment are justified in terms of s 5 of the Bill of Righ...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 9 Gunning v Bankrupt Vehicle Sales and Finance Ltd [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...substantive decision in this matter on 28 November 2013.1 [2] The manner in which this case was heard was unusual. Before the Authority, the defendant was represented by counsel. In response to the plaintiff’s challenge, the defendant filed a statement of defence but did not attend the hearing on 18 November 2013. Rather, by agreement, counsel for the defendant filed submissions. An affidavit of the defendant’s director was also filed. The plaintiff was largely successful...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 194 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...full responsibility for the delay. In an affidavit, Debra Joy Weatherley-Hull, an employee of CultureSafe Hamilton as its office manager, says that due to workload, travel commitments and other urgent matters, an error was made as to when the statement of claim in relation to the challenge needed to be filed. She says this error resulted in them getting it wrong by one day and filing it via email on Saturday, 2 September 2023 rather than Friday, 1 September 2023. She also says that...

8. CAC 10043 v Brooker [2011] NZREADT 24 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...As Mr Baird is deceased clearly he will not be able to give evidence or be cross examined on what Ms Brooker said to him or he said to her at, or just after, the purchase of the property. The issue for this Tribunal is whether or not these three statements (which will need to be examined individually) should be admitted as hearsay evidence pursuant to s 18 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Law: The Statutory Provisions Section 18 of the Evidence Act 2006 provides: 18 General admis...

9. Roos v Wang [2010] NZWHT Auckland 10 [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...................................................................................... 8 LIABILITY OF ADRIAN ROSS KIFF ................................................................ 24 (a) Principal Claim of Negligence ............................................................ 29 (b) Negligent Misstatement ...................................................................... 36 No assumption of responsibility ................................................................. 38 No R...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 65 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 120 KB]

    ...other objections all amount to ones on the grounds of relevance or oppressiveness. To determine relevance, the matters at issue in the litigation must be discerned from the pleadings. The latest operative pleadings are the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim filed on 11 April 2014 and the defendant’s statement of defence to this, filed on 13 May 2014. These issues are conveniently set out between [4] and [15] of the Court’s second interlocutory judgment in the proceeding...