14829 items matching your search terms
...technology. 2 See, for example, High Court Rules 2016, r 9.51; Evidence Act 2006, s 83. 3 See the discussion in V (CA492/10) v R [2011] NZCA 525, citing R v Shone [2008] NZCA 313 at [28]. The Court of Appeal confirmed this is still the principle in Wealleans v R [2015] NZCA 353 at [34]. [6] The alternative is an adjournment. I do not consider this a satisfactory option, including because of the early stage these proceeding...
...8303 EC4240_NoticeOfSessionListOfParties 1. Topic: Topic Number: SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS Resource Consent for Subdivision at 826 Te Apiti Road, Waimarama, Hastings ENV -2018-314-000001 i. B & M Stone v Hastings District Council Appeal Against Decision Of Consent Authority pursuant to Section 120 of the Resource Manaqement Act 1991 Court Reference: ENV-2018-WLG-000028
...going to have a very capable Commission which will have the skills, knowledge and experience to manage the CCRC’s primary function, which is to investigate and review convictions and sentences and to decide whether or not to refer them back to the appeal court. Property The CCRC has now secured a property in central Hamilton to serve as our base. A lease agreement has been signed and hopefully fit-out planning can get under way shortly, so we can be ready for the scheduled s...
...Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act 2009 keeps New Zealand safe from money laundering and terrorism financing. By making it harder for criminals to launder money or finance terrorism, we also make profit-motivated crime, like selling drugs or defrauding people, less appealing. Money laundering affects all of us. It is happening every day across the country. It’s estimated that over $1 billion a year comes from drug dealing and fraud, and can be laundered through New Zealand businesses. The true...
IP < 33 \~ \ ',, - 0 1 h0:1 Of_/ IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATIER OF BETWEEN AND AND IN THE MATIER OF BETWEEN AND Decision [2022] NZEnvC 148 an appeal under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 CABLE BAY WINE LIMITED (ENV-2018-AKL-010) Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent an application under s 316 of the Resource Management Act 1991 AUCKLAND COUNCIL (ENV-2018-AKL-017)...
...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 h...
...claimed or awarded as compensation, or, as the case may be, the amount of the purchase money, rent, or other consideration for which the consent of the Tribunal is applied for or granted, or the value of the land in respect of which the objection or appeal was made. [6] In exercising my discretion under s34 of the LVPA, I consider that there is good reason to prohibit the publication and/or distribution of the affirmation of Mr Sharlick on the grounds it holds information that is...
Scott v Hastings District Council IN THE LAND VALUATION TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND I TE TARAIPŪNARA WĀRIU WHENUA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZLVT 037 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 36 of the Rating Valuations Act 1998 BETWEEN CATHERINE SCOTT (ENV-2023-AKL-000189) Objector AND HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Tribunal: Judge M J L Dickey, Chairperson Date of Decision: 1 July 2024 Date of Issue: 1 July 2024 DETERMINATION OF THE LAND VALUATION TRIBUNA...
...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...
...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...