Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 085 Lee & Rochwalski v Buller District Council [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...Regional Council in 2010.14 The decision granting the resource consent (including any conditions of that consent) will be recognised as valid until it is set aside or amended by a court of competent jurisdiction.15 While the Environment Court hears appeals against decisions granting resource consents, the court does not have an inherent power to review the decision of the Regional Council to grant a water permit. Given the above, I decline to issue the summons sought. Report w...

2. Paul v Doorbar - Pukepapa 3 (2020) 414 Aotea MB 16 (414 AOT 16) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...reservation land are not infrequent. As a result, there are many 14 For examples, see Taueki - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Part Reservation Trust [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2018 APPEAL 512); Hamilton-Tuahu 3X (2009) 34 Gisborne MB 230 (34 APGS 230); Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) (2004) 34 Gisborne Appellate MB 98 (34 APGS 98); Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233) 414 Aot...

3. [2021] NZREADT 43 - Complaints Assessment Committee v Lowndes (10 August 2021) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...[57] The application for an order restricting publication of Ms Lowndes’ name, or identifying details, is declined. [58] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson _________________ Mr N O’Connor Member _____...

4. Yuile v Smith - Tuahu 6 (2022) 112 Tairawhiti MB 20 (112 TRW 20) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(a). 14 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(aa). 15 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(b). 16 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87. 17 Whaanga - Anewa Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 45 (2013 APPEAL 45), at [38]. 18 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(c). 19 Bidois - Te Puna 154D3B2B (2008) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 102 (12 AP 102), and Sione - Te Hapua 24 (2000) 4 Taitokerau Appellate MB 275 (4 APWH 275). https://www....

5. [2022] NZREADT 26 He & An (22 November 2022) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...working days of this decision. 3. Ordered to pay costs of $1,419.50 to the Authority within 20 working days of this decision. [75] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. ___________________ C A Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________ G J Denley Member ___________________ P N O’Connor Member

6. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Collins [2022] NZLCDT 22 (30 June 2022) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...been reached in this particular instance. (b) Negligence [67] The definition of negligence was discussed in the leading case of W v Auckland Standards Committee 3, in which Duffy J was upheld in her description of negligence by the Court of Appeal: “We see no error in the approach which Duffy J adopted in the present case of considering whether reasonable members of the public, informed of all relevant circumstances, would view W’s conduct as tending to bring the profession...

7. National Standards Committee 1 v Palmer [2023] NZLCDT 13 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...that is not its purpose. We also bear in mind that any suspension can bring disruption for clients. We note, however, that in this case these matters have already largely been 14 Above n 13, at [108]. 15 [1982] 2 NSW LR 1 at 6 (Court of Appeal of New South Wales). 13 addressed. There is certainly no need for the two-week delay sought by counsel at the penalty hearing. [53] In this case the Standards Committee has sought a period of suspension in the range of 18 m...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 105 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd Interlocutory Judgment [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...the claim, the Court could consider ordering a lower sum than that applied for. That concession indicates to me that Highmark Homes is not using this application to stifle Ms Watkins’ claim. [37] In McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd, the Court of Appeal stated: “defendants … must be protected against being drawn into unjustified litigation, particularly where it is over-complicated and unnecessarily protracted.”23 Counsel for Highmark Homes submitted that the description fits t...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 76 Al-Bustanji and Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc  [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...the applicants had made their own complaint which was also being dealt with at the same time. [39] Possible sanctions under r 12 include: no further action, a warning, suspension for a period or expulsion from CANZ. Rule 12 contains a right to appeal which would be heard by two or more officers of the union. [40] On 17 April 2024, the solicitors for the applicants wrote to Mr du Plessis as president, raising concerns about his involvement in the meetings on 13 and 14 May 2023,...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 29 E Tū Inc v New Zealand Steel Ltd [pdf, 278 KB]

    ...receive. 10 Aviation and Marine Engineers Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 172 at [71] – [72]; New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 168, [2014] ERNZ 709 at [14] and [17]; not doubted on appeal – Air New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Inc [2016] NZCA 131, [2016] 2 NZLR 829, (2016) 15 NZELR 105 at [76], and New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZSC 111, [2017] 1 NZLR...