14610 items matching your search terms
1 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act BETWEEN TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST Appellant AND BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent ___________________________________________________________________ JOINT STATEMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EXPERTS IN LIEU OF CAUCUSING 2...
...complainant, a national of India, was in New Zealand on a visitor visa, with her husband and daughter. [5] Ms Khetarpal, a licensed immigration adviser, was a director of Ivisas Ltd, of Auckland. Her licence had been cancelled on 16 February 2016. On appeal to the District Court, it issued an interim order on 22 March 2016 allowing her to practice subject to supervision, including a condition that she inform her clients that she was providing advice pursuant to an interim order....
...review application proceeding further. 11 Abuse of process [67] The meaning and application of “abuse of process” has been widely considered by the Courts. Some useful themes emerge. [68] In Moevao v Department of Labour the Court of Appeal held that the underlying objective of the abuse of process doctrine is the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice.12 [69] In the United Kingdom, Lord Bingham said the following:13 The underlying public in...
...residence application for the complainant and his family. It incorporated a business plan (BP). Immigration New Zealand (Immigration NZ) declined the residence visa on 29 September 2016 as it was not satisfied the business was trading profitably. An appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal was declined on 13 July 2017. [8] On 17 January 2019, a second entrepreneur residence application was filed on behalf of the complainant and his family. Immigration NZ sent a letter...
...proceeded by way of an audio-visual hearing with Mr RF on 2 August 2022. 8 Nature and scope of review [35] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:12 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It i...
...proceedings were adjourned on the issues of liability and apportionment 3 National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Limited [1995] AC 444 at 452 (House of Lords); Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1994) [1995] 1 WLR 599 at 613 (Court of Appeal). [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] 9 of liability for costs and clean-up expenses under s 315(2)(c) of the Act.4 I acknowledge that in consenting to the making of enforcement orders the Fourth to Sixth Respondents...
...“precautionary principle” to which Mummery LJ refers should be seen as applicable in a finely balanced case. I have formed the view from the context in which the passage appears, immediately following reference to another decision of the Court of Appeal in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd. In Locabail, the Court (Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ, Lord Woolf MR and Sir Richard Scott VC) had said:22 … By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought to arise if there...
...(5) For every trust constituted under this Part of this Act the Court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [29] Clarke v Karaitiana, a decision of the Court of Appeal, is a leading authority on the appointment of trustees.10 That Court confirmed that trust beneficiaries’ views are important considerations, along with the range of experience needed and the risk of conflicts: [51] The touchstone...
...and questioning the value of an insincere apology. He queried whether an ordered apology might encroach on rights of freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The short answer to those submissions is that this is not an appeal or review of the LCRO decision. In any case, the order was lawful.5 [10] The letter comprises 12 paragraphs. It expresses Mr Kennelly’s internal conflict in being forced to apologise when he thinks that is unjust. He bolsters his pos...
...occurred without proof of mens rea. The accused is required to prove a defence (on the balance of probabilities), or disprove a presumption, to avoid liability. 62. Although infringement offences do not result in a criminal conviction, the Court of Appeal in Henderson v Director, Land Transport New Zealand held that the rights in sections 24 and 25 of the Bill of Rights Act apply to minor offences dealt with under the infringement notice regime.14 63. We note that infringement off...