Search Results

1. BORA Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...subject matter of its historical claims should not be the subject of further litigation. The Crown is satisfied there was the appropriate mandate to enter into such an agreement. This assessment is also consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [2008] 1 NZLR 318. 5.2 In that context, exclusion of jurisdiction in respect of the claims, settlement deed and the Bill is an integral part of the settlement process. 6. I note, in this r...

2. Barns - Lot 39A Sec. 2B No. 2B No. 2A Parish of Matata (2018) 387 Aotea MB 218 (387 AOT 218) [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...2 De Loree v Mokomoko – Hiwarau C (2001) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 32 (10 AP 32) 3 Barcello–Gemmell – Gore Blks XVII and XIX S90B2 (2004) 6 Te Waipounamu Appellate MB 29 (6 APTW 29); Ripia [2012] Maori Appellate Court MB 175 (2012 APPEAL 175); Wano v Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc (2013) 24 Takitimu MB 56 (24 TKT 56), and Haig– Waipiro A13 Incorporation (2008) 182 Gisborne MB 7 (182 GIS 7). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM290959#DL...

3. Baker v Samuels-Thomas - Matauri X Incorporation (2018) 178 Taitokerau MB 131 (178 TTK 131) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...– Matauri X Incorporation (2018) 174 Taitokerau MB 51 (174 TTK 51). 2 Samuels – Matauri X Incorporation (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate Court MB 216 (7 APWH 216), Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64), Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Takitimu Appellate Court MB 184 (13 ACTK 184) and Manuirirangi v Paraninihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation – Paraninihi Ki Waitotara (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate Court M...

4. 5 July 2021 Middle Hill Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS Private Plan Change 25 (Warkworth North) to the Auckland Unitary Plan ENV-2020-304-000022 Middle Hill Limited v Auckland Council Applicant: GP (Turnstone Capital) Limited Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 Court Reference: ENV-2020-AKL-000048 1. i. ii. Topic:

5. [2017] NZEnvC 151 Auckland Council v L Mao, J Mao, E K Lau & Jesus 2016 Company Limited [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...from Mr Lau within the required five working days (or alternatively 25 August 2017). Should costs be awarded? [4] This is a case where the Court has already indicated that it considers that an application for costs should be made, given that the appeals are vexatious, frivolous and have no reasonable prospect of success. Furthermore, I concluded in the substantive decision at paragraph [27]1 that they were misconceived entirely. At paragraph [28], furthermore, the motivation for t...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 229 Augustine Lau (Ee Kuoh Lau) v Auckland Council [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...KUOH LAU) (ENV-2018-AKL-000034) Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge M Harland sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Date of Decision: • Date of Issue: -3 DEC 2018 DECISION OF THE ENVIORNMENT COURT [A] The appeal is struck out in accordance with s 279(4) of the Act. [B] There is no order for costs. 2 REASONS Introduction [1] This matter involves an application to vary enforcement orders that were granted by this Court in relation to pro...

7. Law Commissioner Position Description [docx, 28 KB]

   ...Remuneration Authority. About the Commission Section 9 of the Act provides for the membership of the Commission to be no fewer than three and not more than six members. One member of the Commission, who must be a current or retired Judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court, or a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than seven years' practice, is appointed as the President of the Commission. Section 5 of the Act provides that the principal functions of the Law C...

8. ENV-2016-CHC-000071 Affidavit of Ms Lisa Jenkins [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...CRPS became operative and when reviews are scheduled for the remainder. Territorial Authority Plan review status KaikOura Have not undertaken a Plan review. Review is due in 2018. Hurunui Recently completed Plan review. Plan currently under appeal. Waimakariri Plan is currently under review, in the initial scoping stage. Christchurch Plan is currently under review, decisions are being progressively released. Selwyn Plan is currently under review, currently at "issues and...

9. Hamilton v O'Donnell Brick and Tile Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...since the time of the Disputes Tribunal hearing. Decision 6. It is well established in New Zealand law that parties cannot re-litigate questions that have already been judicially determined. Authority for this can be found in the Court of Appeal decision of Shiels v Blakeley [1986] 2 NZLR 262 (at 266) where the Court stated: “Where a final decision has been pronounced by a New Zealand judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject-mat...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 17 Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust v Yao [pdf, 78 KB]

    ...counsel for the defendant, filed further submissions. However, Mr Ryan, counsel for the plaintiff, did not file submissions within the time directed, but at a later date indicated to the Court that the plaintiff had instructed him to discontinue the appeal. An appropriate Notice of Discontinuance was then filed on 9 December 2016 following prompting by the Court. The Notice of Discontinuance indicated that costs on the discontinuance remained an issue. [4] Even though the pla...