Search Results

1. Young people & infringement fines: a qualitative study [pdf, 139 KB]

   Young People and Infringement Fines: A Qualitative Study Prepared for the Ministry of Justice by Litmus Limited October 2005 2 DISCLAIMER This research was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. The report has been prepared by the research company and the views expressed in it are those of the research company and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ministry of Justice. First published in October 2005 by the Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand ISBN 0-

2. [2020] NZEnvC 211 Panuku Development Auckland Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...,,,,._ ~ ~i 3/ BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I MUA I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Kl TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2020] NZEnvC 2( \ of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (ENV-2018-AKL-000176) Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent R Peters and R Bannan R Dexter and A Modrow N Smith P Lange L Whiley s 27 4 parties Court: E...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 089 Shundi Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 14 MB]

   SHUNDI v QLDC – FINAL DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 89 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN SHUNDI QUEENSTOWN LIMITED (ENV-2020-CHC-85) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner J T Baines Hearing: In Chambers on the papers Last case eve...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 173 Habitus Group Limited v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 23 MB]

   CONSENT ORDER – HABITUS GROUP LTD v CCC IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 173 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN HABITUS GROUP LIMITED (ENV-2024-CHC-7) Appellant AND CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge K G Reid – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Consent Order: 18 July 2024...

5. [2007] NZEmpC AC 17/07 Housham v Juken NZ Limited [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...that awards for such consequences will usually fall in a range up to about $27,0001, the consequences of his unjustified summary dismissal and the circumstances of it warrant a substantial but not excessive award. Taking account of the Court of Appeal’s guidelines in this area and, to the extent that this is possible, comparing Mr Housham’s suffering to that of other grievants, I assess that there should be an award of compensation under s123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relation...

6. [2007] NZEmpC WC 32A/07 Port of Napier Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...and investigation by the Employment Relations Authority. This is not a novel proposition: it has long been the approach of the courts illustrated by cases such as Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 1 ERNZ 354, followed in the Court of Appeal in Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917. [42] A further discretionary factor against the grant of injunctive relief is the apparent lack of consultation by the employer with either the employees or their union about...

7. [2010] NZEmpC 11 NZ PSA v Secretary for Justice [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...bargaining; and (ii) communications or correspondence (between or on behalf of the parties before, during, or after negotiations) that relate to the bargaining [43] The leading case determining what is “bargaining” is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Christchurch City Council v Southern Local Government Officers Union Inc.4 Although that case dealt with whether communications from an employer to employees represented by a union in collective bargaining amounted to the c...

8. [2007] NZEmpC AC 53/07 Hansells (NZ) Ltd v Ma [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...regarded as irrelevant for the purposes of interpreting it. That was because all that was said to matter was the intention of the parties at the time of entry into the contract and not later. There are now a number of dicta, including of the Court of Appeal, indicating that change to this former rule is close: A-G v Dreux Holdings Ltd (1996) 7 TCLR 617 (CA) and Raptorial Holdings Ltd (in Rec) v Elders Pastoral Holdings Ltd [2001] 1 NZLR 178; (2001) 7 NZBLC 103,219 (CA). [38] In the Spo...

9. [2007] NZEmpC AC 5A/07 Ali'imatafitafi v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...defendant, the plaintiff was dismissed on 17 December 2002 and the test for justification in s103A of the Employment Relations Act, which came into force on 1 December 2004, does not apply. Consequently the test is that contained in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448, 457. The issue for the Court is whether the defendant has, on the balance of probabilities, discharged the onus of showing that the decision to dismiss the plaintiff...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 1 Gini v Literacy Training Ltd [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...could ever constitute serious misconduct. Legal principles [16] The principles applicable to any assessment of economic loss and compensation under s 123 of the Act are now well established. They were conveniently summed up by the Court of Appeal in Sam’s Fukuyama Food Services Ltd v Zhang 3 in these terms: [24] We now deal briefly with the applicable principles. In Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Nutter, this Court approved the principle that compensation for lost remuneration...