Search Results

1. BORA Domestic Violence Enhancing Safety Bill [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...notably, in denying that person access to land or buildings that he or she may own or otherwise be entitled to enter or use – by decision of a non-judicial officer and without procedural safeguards either at the time or by way of subsequent review or appeal, and so raises an issue as to compliance with the right to natural justice affirmed by s 27(1). Further, there is also limited immunity for the Crown and Police, under which there is no substantive redress for an order that is made or...

2. 13 September 2016 Motiti Rohe Moana Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Coastal Environment Plan - Planning, use and development in the coastal environment – providing for tangata whenua aspirations – Motiti Rohe Moana Trust ENV-2016-348-000040 Motiti Rohe Moana Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council 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-2015-AKL-000134 1. i. Topic:

3. [2019] NZEmpC 51 Goleman Wellington Cleaning Ltd v Nicolle [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...cases such as Assured Financial Peace Ltd v Pais and New Zealand Cards Ltd v Ramsay assist in exercising that discretion.5 Those factors include: (a) if a stay is not granted whether the challenge will be rendered ineffectual; (b) whether the appeal is brought for good reasons, in good faith; (c) the effect on third parties; (d) the novelty and importance of the questions involved in the case; (e) the public interest; and (f) the overall balance of convenience. Rendered ine...

4. 2021-03-09 Tom de Pelsemaeker - Summary of Evidence (dated 8 March 2021) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...conferencing) how the plan change provisions can be further refined to better achieve the plan change’s intended outcome. In my opinion, there are four areas where further amendments could be considered: (a) Make the controlled activity pathway more appealing without creating risk of further environmental degradation. (b) Strengthen the non-complying activity pathway. (c) Make better provision, within the framework of PC7, for higher priority takes and uses of water (2nd pr...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 95 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Rachelle is opposed to any costs orders being made. The grounds of her opposition are unclear. In response to Air New Zealand’s claim she filed a memorandum purporting to be a reply, but its content was a copy of her submissions to the Court of Appeal in support of an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal.4 She has taken no further steps to make any costs submissions, but has had ample time to do so. 2 “Employment Cou...

6. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 96 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Crosswell & Anor v Auckland City Council & Ors File No: TRI 2008-100-000107/ DBH 04634 Court: WHT Adjudicator: SG Lockhart QC Date of Decision: 17 August 2009 Background This decision relates to a claim filed by the claimants in the Tribunal under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 concerning their leaky home and the involvements of the first respondent (Auckland City Council), third respondent (Mr Malone), sixth respondent (Mr Ruffl

7. McGregor v Jensen [pdf, 76 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: McGregor v Jensen File No: TRI 2008-100-000094/ DBH 00971 Court: WHT Chair of Tribunal: PA McConnell Date of Decision: 24 July 2009 Background Due to defects in the construction of the house, damage ensued. The remedial work included a complete reclad however further work is still required to repair leaks associated with masonry block retaining walls. The claimants (Trust) alleged that the third respondent, Auckland City Council, the eighth respondent, Mr

8. Findlay v Auckland City Council [pdf, 92 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Findlay & Anor v Auckland City Council & Anor File No: TRI 2008-100-000034/ DBH 03882 Court: WHT Adjudicator: KD Kilgour Date of Decision: 9 September 2009 Background The claimants are the trustees of the Lee Findlay Family Trust governed solely by one of the trustees, Mr Findlay. His co-trustee, Mr Sandelin did not take part in this claim. Mr Findlay sought damages to compensate the cost of remedial work he undertook and general damages against th

9. Marywil Investments Ltd v North Shore Ctiy Council [pdf, 21 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Marywil Investments Ltd v North Shore City Council & Ors File No: TRI 2008-100-000031/ DBH 02988 Court: WHT Adjudicator: Chair PA McConnell Date of Decision: 14 July 2009 Background Marywil Investments Ltd as trustee of the Marywil Trust (the Trust) is the owner of the property. In 2004, after seeing evidence of damage from leaks, the Trust registered a claim with the WHRS. The Trust filed a claim with the Tribunal naming the North Shore City Council (C

10. [2017] NZEmpC 18 Leota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [pdf, 81 KB]

    ...guideline scale, amounts to $17,394. [5] As Mr Chemis has stated in his submissions, prior to the introduction of the guideline scale, the discretion of this Court to award costs was exercised in accordance with principles confirmed by the Court of Appeal in three separate decisions. 4 The principles in those authorities applying to this case are that costs follow the event and that the practice established by the Court is to award two-thirds of actual and reasonable costs. [6...