Search Results

1. ENV-2020-AKL-000102

   Appeal ENV-2020-AKL-000102 Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Waikato Regional Council s274 interested parties Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game Council Ballance Agri-Nutrients Beef+Lamb New Zealand Limited CNI Iwi Land Management Limited Dairy NZ Limited Director-General of Conservation Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited Horticulture New Zealand Genetic Technologies Limited G Pinnell Graeme Gleeson Landcorp Farming Limited Lochiel Farmlands Limited Matamata-Piako District Council Mercury NZ Limit...

   Located in:

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

2. [2025] NZLVT 027 – Carpenter v Southland District Council (16 June 2025) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...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. 1 Bottinga v Auckland Coun...

3. [2025] NZLVT 14 - Belk 500 Limited v Tauranga City Council (7 April 2025) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...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. In this case, the parties ha...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 227 Te Mana Moana o Ngati Irapuaia Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   Te Mana Moana o Ngāti Irapuaia Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 227 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under section 120 the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN TE MANA MOANA O NGĀTI IRAPUAIA TRUST (ENV-2023-AKL-000079) Appellant AND BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent AND ŌPŌTIKI MARINA AND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED Applicant AND NGĀI TAMAHAUA NGĀ...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 176 Lean Meats Oamaru Ltd v NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...or what their negotiating stance was at any particular time. 16 [22] Later in the same judgment, Judge Ford referred to another decision which contains statements that are relevant for present purposes: 17 [18] Historically, as the Court of Appeal recognised in Silver Fern Farms, contextual considerations have always had a particular significance in relation to the interpretation of industrial agreement. At [15] of that case the Court of Appeal noted with approval 18 the app...

6. 2010 to 2013 Ministry of Justice statement of intent [pdf, 498 KB]

   ...closely with the LSA in preparation for the transfer. Tribunals The Immigration Act 2009 established a single Immigration and Protection Tribunal to be administered by the Ministry, to decide immigration, deportation, refugee and protection appeals in New Zealand. It replaces four existing appellate bodies: - Residence Review Board – currently administered by the Department of Labour (DoL) - Removal Review Authority – currently administered by DoL - Refugee Status Appeals A...

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

   ...misstatement has always been whether the defendant assumed responsibility for his or her words and whether the other party relied on the statement (see Attorney-General v Carter)6. In Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd,7 the Court of Appeal held that the conventional two stage test of negligence is to be applied in every case. In the case of negligent misstatement the proximity inquiry (i.e. the first step) will generally focus on the “interdependent concepts...

8. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...[46] The developer of a residential property owes a non- delegable duty of care to an intended homeowner to ensure the construction of a structurally sound house. The starting point for analysis of the scope of a duty of care is the Court of Appeal decision Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson,2 where it was held at page [241]: “We would hold that it is a duty to see that proper care and skill are exercised in the building of the houses and that it cannot be avoided by...

9. LCRO 43/2016 XZ v QW [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...scope of review [35] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

10. LCRO 95/2013 GI v JM (28 June 2017) [pdf, 255 KB]

    ...Scope of Review [28] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:10 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. 6 At [38]. 7 Letter attached to Mr GI’S application for review at...