Search Results

1. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee No. 1 v Grave [2016] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...to our decisions in similar cases such as Hart5 and Eichelbaum.6 [43] The application for permanent name suppression is declined however, as signalled to Mr Grave, the interim name suppression order will remain in place until the expiry of the appeal period in this matter. Referral to Registrar General of Lands [44] The Standards Committee has asked the Tribunal to make a comment as to whether this matter ought to be referred to the Registrar General, a matter which might impa...

2. AB v WA & Ors LCRO 68/2015 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...process will, if it gives proper consideration to the evidence they provide: 9 • Conclude that proofs of debt provided to the High Court and to the company liquidator were incorrect. • Arrive at conclusion that a decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld a statutory demand, should be overturned. • Arrive at a different view to that of the High Court when that Court, in a decision delivered on [Day Month Year], refused leave to Mr and Mrs AB to pursue their matters f...

3. BZ v FI LCRO 245/2013 (5 April 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...helpful guidance on the nature and scope of a LCRO review. She described the review framework in the Act as creating “a very particular statutory process”.1 [16] Her Honour noted that: 2 …the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his o...

4. FH v GJ LCRO 87/2014 (7 Aug 2015) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...Ms FH’s unsatisfactory conduct warranted a rebuke from the Committee. It is immaterial whether this rebuke took the form of a reprimand or a censure. The meaning of the terms “reprimand” and “censure” were considered by the Court of Appeal in The New Zealand Law Society v B. [39] The Court decided that the two terms are synonymous:13 This is apparent from a range of definitions of the two words, including those in Black’s Law Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, t...

5. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 59 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 669 KB]

   ...right-holders, and without compensation. Today, the 2 3 6 8 5 9 Tribunal Report on the foreshore and seabed cont inued on page 3 Crown wishes to restore that situation of effective Crown ownership, which had been challenged by the Court of Appeal. The Tribunal found that there is no over- whelming need for the Crown to do this in the national interest, or to set aside Treaty protections. It considered that, at the very least, the Crown must compensate those who will lose proper...

6. Harland v Prentice - Mana Ahuriri Incorporated Society (2017) 57 Takitimu MB 1 (57 Takitimu 1) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...number of purposes. The purpose must relate to some matter of business that is pressing at the time. It must also be established that the question of 9 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 577 (2011 APPEAL 577) at [40] 10 Ibid at [43] see also Manuirirangi v Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine Iwi Inc [2010] Chief Judge’s MB 355 (2015 CJ 355) at [33] 57 Tākitimu MB 9 representation for the particular purpose described has not and cannot b...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 59 Nel v ASB Bank Ltd [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...New Zealand Inc v Scott EmpC Auckland AC45/08, 8 August 2006 at [11]. 5 Pacific Plastic Recyclers Ltd v Foo [2002] 2 ERNZ 75 (EmpC). 6 At [24]. [25] The rationale for the provision of proper particulars was explained by the Court of Appeal in Price Waterhouse v Fortex Group Ltd in these terms:7 Pleadings which are properly drawn and particularised are, in the case of any complexity, if not in all cases, an essential roadmap for the Court and the parties. They are the doc...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 010 David Mulholland Consulting Engineer Ltd v Whanganui District Council [pdf, 849 KB]

   ...stability of the proposed retaining structure, and the land and buildings affected by it. In practical terms, one could almost certainly predict that the only evidence that would satisfy a Councilor other RMA decision-maker (eg this Court on an appeal) about those issues would be that of a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer. The Council's position [14] As a first issue, Ms Mcindoe submits that Declaration 1 (as sought) is not within the scope of s31 O. I...

9. [2018] NZLCDT 22 Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Horsley [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...something is a different flavour, and whether the flavour has become a poison, can only be determined in a particular case by the familiar techniques of close analysis of the facts, and the commonsense application of judgment.” [28] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a practitioner cannot properly discharge his or her “duties to one whose interests are in opposition to those of another client”.3 2 Taylor v Schofield Peterson [1999]...

10. [2018] NZEnvC 126 The Wellington Company Limited v Save Erskine College Trust [pdf, 4.9 MB]

    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC i" to of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") of an appeal under s 195 RMA THE WELLINGTON COMPANY LIMITED ("TWCll)) (ENV-2017 -WlG-000038) Appellant THE SAVE ERSKINE COllEGE TRUST ("SECT") Respondent HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ("HNZPT") Section 274 RMA Party Court: Pr...