Search Results

1. ENV-2020-AKL-000084

   Appeal ENV-2020-AKL-000084 Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v Waikato Regional Council s274 interested parties Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game Council Beef+Lamb New Zealand Limited CNI Iwi Land Management Limited Dairy NZ Limited Director-General of Conservation Federated Farmers of New Zealand G Pinnell Graeme Gleeson Hamilton City Council Hancock Forest Management (NZ) Limited Horticulture New Zealand Lochiel Farmlands Limited Matamata-Piako District Council Mercury NZ Limited Miraka Limited...

   Located in:

   1. Environment Court >
   2. Environment Court cases online >
   3. Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1

2. ENV-2020-AKL-000096

   Appeal ENV-2020-AKL-000096 Director-General of Conservation v Waikato Regional Council s274 interested parties Bathurst and BT Beef+Lamb New Zealand Limited Contact Energy Limited Dairy NZ Limited Federated Farmers of New Zealand Genesis Energy Limited Genetic Technologies Limited G Pinnell Graeme Gleeson Hamilton City Council Hancock Forest Management (NZ) Limited Horticulture New Zealand King Country Energy Limited - Interest withdrawn 22/01/2021 Lochiel Farmlands Limited Matamata-Piako D...

   Located in:

   1. Environment Court >
   2. Environment Court cases online >
   3. Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1

3. [2025] NZLVT 031 - Mursell v Wellington City Council (2 July 2025) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...The onus of proof on the objection lay on Mr Gilbert as the objector. The initial revaluation signed by a registered valuer in the name of the Valuer- General was presumptively correct. Mr Gilbert - both before the Tribunal, and before this Court on appeal - had the affirmative burden. It was not enough for Mr Gilbert - through Mr Robinson - to show that the scales were even at the end of the hearing. He had to show that the Valuer-General was wrong. [8] In this case, the parties have...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 155 Manuka Health New Zealand Ltd v Kalic [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...was granted to Manuka Health New Zealand Ltd.1 The company challenged a determination of the Employment Relations Authority where Mr Kalic succeeded in his claim for an unjustified disadvantage.2 The stay was sought to preserve the company’s appeal rights while it pursued an application to reopen the investigation in the Authority. 1 Manuka Health New Zealand Ltd v Kalic [2024] NZEmpC 78. 2 Kalic v Health New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZERA 107. [2] The challenge was confi...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 13 Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v EBIIWU [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...The Authority referred to the two approaches suggested by counsel for the defendants and then proceeded to apply what counsel for the plaintiff has referred to as the “Binnie analysis”, a reference to the approach sanctioned by the Court of Appeal in Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd. 5 [14] Without making any express reference to the Binnie decision, the Authority rejected the daily tariff approach and proceeded to fix an award in the sum of

6. [2011] NZEmpC 33 Tertiary Education Union v Western Institute of Technology [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...be a significant in-road into what is otherwise a matter to be negotiated freely between the parties to the bargaining. He suggested this would be wholly inconsistent with both the statutory scheme as interpreted by this Court and the Court of Appeal. In the Service & Food Workers Union case, this Court found at para 96 that the Act “contemplates one set of negotiations for the same parties initiated either by a union or unions or by an employer or employers.” Mr Cook also...

7. [2010] NZEmpC 59 Wellington Free Ambulance Service v Adams [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...Marinkovich,4 and, most recently, NZEMPU Inc v Zeal 320 Ltd.5 [10] The principles for deciding applications for interlocutory injunctive relief are traceable to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom via judgments in the High Court and the Court of Appeal such as Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd.6 These referred to and adopted the judgments in the House of Lords in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon.7 In that case, Lord Diplock stated at p 406: … where the...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 12 NZ Tramways & Public Passengers Transport Employees' Union Inc v Wellington City Transport Limited [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...is never established that he or she committed a crime in the course of the agency or employment. That is not indemnifying for criminal conduct, but indemnifying for the consequences of working in the employer’s or principal’s interests. On appeal, although on other points, the Court of Appeal opined in Davidson: 13 … the indemnification of agents at common law does not extend to expenses incurred in defending an allegation that the person charged did something which he or sh...

9. [2006] NZEmpC WC 17/06 Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...that short delay. No evidence of prejudice was adduced and the defendant’s witnesses were required in any event for the 90-day issue to be heard. [14] For the same reason, I have been able to evaluate in full the merits of the substantive appeal on both the issues Mr Bryson wishes to challenge. [15] In these circumstances, there is a strong degree of artificiality in assessing the merits of the claim for the purpose of this application separate from that of the appeal. [16] A...

10. [2012] NZEmpC 5 Bishop & Bishop v Bennett [pdf, 90 KB]

    ...discretion to make orders as to costs but, as with all such discretions, it must be exercised judicially and in accordance with principle. The key principles applicable to the Court’s discretion to award costs have been set out by the Court of Appeal in three very well known decisions: Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305, Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 and Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172. [3] The fundamental purpose of an aw...