Search Results

1. Tuson - Mangamuka West 3B2A Block (2019) 206 Taitokerau MB 130 (206 TTK 130) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...worried about the Church and Church Road being impacted. Victor Harris said Route C was the old way of travelling and does not impose too much on the land. Deidre Everitt said her preference was for Route C. [38] Miriama Harris discussed her affidavit filed with the Court on 9 April 2019, opposing access through Route C and revoking her initial support at 168 Taitokerau MB 26. She rejected the construction of a 10-metre width road as an unnecessary land intrusion. She also discuss...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ravelich [2020] NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...11 February 2015, when he received an email from Mr M’s counsel spelling this out in no uncertain terms and referring to an earlier promise by Mr Ravelich not to contact his client directly. Despite that he sent a letter to Mr M, attaching an affidavit, on 23 September 2016. Then in October or November of 2017, having issued further proceedings, Mr Ravelich accompanied a process server to Mr M’s home to serve the documents, in the course of which there was an altercation betwe...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 246 Wellington International Airport Limited 20.12.18 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...was initially filed. The application was supported by 27 technical reports and work done in respect of those reports pre-dated them by some time. Much of the information contained in the reports would now be three or four years old. For example, affidavit evidence provided to the Court by the First Applicants has identified changes in the character of Lyall Bay which they say need to be taken into account. [29] While we accept that when there has been a delay of the length which has...

4. Fitikefu v Department of Corrections (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 51 [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...Corrections now applies to have the proceedings struck out on the grounds of the overall delay, submitting that the claim for damages is an abuse of process as it is time- barred by analogy with the Limitation Act 1950 (LA 1950). Reliance is placed on an affidavit sworn by Ms SF Bakker, the person who made the alleged unlawful disclosure. She says her recollection of the relevant events (beyond the documentary records she reviewed in the preparation of her affidavit) is now limited. [5]...

5. LCRO 189/2020 ZK v XM (30 August 2021) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...Mr ZK would be required to meet his fees. [67] Mr ZK suggests that his wife had, at various times, raised the issue of legal aid with Mr XM. But suggestion that Mr ZK’s wife had been involved in discussions with Mr XM is inconsistent with the affidavit sworn by Mrs ZK on 10 September 2019 and filed in the Court of Appeal in support of Mr ZK’s appeal against conviction. At paragraph 60 of her affidavit, Mrs ZK recalls a discussion she had had with Mr XM at the [city] court duri...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 5 and Southland Standards Committee v Taia [2022] NZLCDT 17 (9 June 2022) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...recognises that the Tribunal is normally best placed to assess the seriousness of the practitioner’s offending. Wilful and calculated dishonesty normally justifies striking off. So too does a practitioner’s decision to knowingly swear a false affidavit. Finally, personal mitigating factors may play a less significant role than they do in sentencing. 9.13 In Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 the High Court made the following comments (at para [185] onwards):24 (a) The ultima...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 89 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...asserting that the actions of the DHB, its lawyers, the Authority, and this Court, have all been unlawful, and so are the proceeding which are before the Court. Consequently, he says it should be struck out. [22] The application is supported by an affidavit from Mr Halse which focuses on what he says, in effect, is egregious expenditure by the DHB on these proceedings, and that the processes of the Court are being abused simply because he and Ms Shaw have exercised their fundament...

8. [2024] NZEnvC 080 Digital Signs Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...display are not specified, but the overall area is stated to be 72m2. Given the size of each dome as 14 x 7m, it appears that each LED display would be of the order of 10 x 7m. [7] Mr David Jaques, the sole director of Digital Signs, explains in his affidavit sworn on 14 July 2023 that the LED displays will only show a static image of the same Pōhutukawa trees as are on the decals applied to the domes, with the brightness of the displays at night adjusted to comply with the AUP so...

9. [2024] NZREADT 25 - CAC 2107 v RCG Reality Ltd (29 July 2024) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...at [34], citing Roberts v Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand [2012] NZHC 3354 at [44]–[51] and Katamat v Professional Conduct Committee [2012] NZHC 1633, [2013] NZAR 320 at [49]. 8 SUBMISSIONS [33] An affidavit was filed by the sole director and shareholder of RCG, Desmond Wai, on 5 June 2024. Submissions were filed by the Committee on 22 May 2024 and on behalf of RCG on 5 June 2024. Submissions in reply to RCG’s submissions were filed...

10. Amendments to Court Rules 2025 [pdf, 522 KB]

    ...specified time frames after the service of pleadings (new rule 7.4 and new form G 41 in Schedule 2). Discovery and disclosure Require a bundle of documents, which must include adverse documents, to be provided for initial disclosure (verified by affidavit) and served at the same time as a party’s first substantive pleading (new rules 8.4(1) to (1B) and 8.15(2)); Allow further disclosure to be agreed by the parties or made by order of a Judge (new rule 8.4A); Allow Judges to lim...