Search Results

1. OWRUG - Supplementary - S Dicey - Planning - 19 March 2021 [pdf, 573 KB]

   ...In my opinion the substantive steps required by this policy will exclude some permit holders from this pathway altogether and will dis-incentivise others from pursuing this option – particularly if the controlled activity pathway is made more appealing. Supplementary Evidence of Planning Witnesses on Amendments to PC7 30. I agree with Mr Brass’ addition to the objective proposed for PC7 – to add the word ‘enable’ to the start of this objective for the reasons outlined in h...

2. RIA - Prohibition of Conversion Practices [pdf, 355 KB]

   Full Impact Statement Template | 1 Coversheet: Prohibiting Conversion Practices Advising agencies Ministry of Justice Decision sought This analysis has been conducted to inform Cabinet decisions regarding the manifesto commitment to ban conversion practices. Proposing Ministers Minister of Justice Summary: Problem and Proposed Approach Problem Definition What problem or opportunity does this proposal seek to address? Why is Government intervention required? Con

3. Te-Manutukutuku-Issue-79.pdf [pdf, 11 MB]

   ...pro­ ceedings seeking to judicially review the Tribunal’s report. The parties to those proceedings have agreed to interim orders staying the effect of the Tribunal’s report pending the conclu­ sion of the judicial review and any sub­ sequent appeals.  The Mangatū Remedies panel during hearings in August 2018 in Gisborne (from bottom : Dr Ann Parsonson, Judge Stephanie Milroy, Associate Professor Tom Roa, and Tim Castle). 11 North-Eastern Bay of Plenty Report On 13 December...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 20 Henry v South Waikato Achievement Trust [pdf, 385 KB]

   ...person to become aware of the bruising and it was her comment to Ms Lunam in about October 2017 that eventually led to Ms Henry being informed. [82] The test for disparity of treatment was dealt with in Buchanan.12 In that case the Court of Appeal posed three questions. Is there disparity of treatment? If so, is there an adequate explanation for the disparity? If not, is the dismissal justified, notwithstanding the disparity for which there is no explanation?13 [83] B did no...

5. Final-Technical-Assessment-F-Hydrology-and-Flooding-updated-23-Dec-2022_Part1.pdf [pdf, 20 MB]

   Barristers and Solicitors Wellington Solicitor Acting: David Allen / Thaddeus Ryan Email: david.allen@buddlefindlay.com / thaddeus.ryan@buddlefindlay.com Tel 64 4 462 0423 Fax 64 4 499 4141 PO Box 2694 DX SP20201 Wellington 6011 IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF applications for resource consents and notices of requirement in relation to the Ōtaki to North of Levin Project BY WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY

6. Hipango v Ngaurukehu Section 3 and Other Blocks Inc. - Rangiwaea 4F14A2C (2023) 473 Aotea MB 25 (473 AOT 25) [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...there are multiple blocks, because the statutory language is exactly the same? 70 Closing, Koning, above n 8 at 16-18; Maori Affairs Bill 1987 Part IX, cl 270-271; Mokaraka v Mokaraka – Waima C8 Block [2022] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2022 APPEAL 17) at [27]-[28]. 71 Closing, Unsworth, above n 63 at 35-39. 72 Closing, Unsworth, above n 63 at 39. 473 Aotea MB 250 [104] Māori incorporations operate in their own bespoke legal context within the Act. A context based o...

7. Fruean v Knuckey - Waitara West 52D (2023) 475 Aotea MB 284 (475 AOT 284) [pdf, 371 KB]

   ...include the word “necessary”, the test for removal of a trustee is desirability, not necessity. The Court goes on to note that there is little guidance in the Act 5 Henderson v Brooking - Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17). 6 Above n 5 at [35]. 475 Aotea MB 303 as to what is meant by “desirable.” After considering relevant dictionary definitions, the Appellate Court said:7 The courts have historically assessed applications for re...

8. [2024] NZREADT 40 - CAC v Tafilipepe (25 October 2024) [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...or engage Ms Tafilipepe in connection with real estate agency work for a period of five years from the date of this decision. [113] 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. PUBLICATION [114] The Tribunal has a discretion to prohibit publication of the name or affairs of any person.24 [115] Mr Smith submits there are grounds for suppression of the name of Ms Tafilipepe and her agenc...

9. Rapana v Anderson - Te Kōmiti Matua o te Haahi Rātana (2024) 492 Aotea MB 95 (492 AOT 95) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...accountability to the relevant group of Māori? (d) Is there clear evidence that the person or group has been undertaking representative activities? 9 Aperahama v Anderson – Section 57 of the Rātana Pā [2022] Māori Appellate Court MB 424 (2022 APPEAL 424). 492 Aotea MB 105 (e) Is there utility in making a representative order? (f) Does the order provide clarity for third parties seeking to engage with the relevant group of Māori? (g) Can the issue be resolved out...

10. 2021-03-23 Transcript (up to Mr McIndoe on day 10) [pdf, 3.4 MB]

    ...desirability of preparing a regional plan when the implementation of a NPSFM arises, or is likely to arise. [99] It is also important to bear in mind that the Environment Court’s jurisdiction 20 is functionally limited. It is confined by the scope of appeals, and in turn further limited by the scope of submissions and further submissions. I agree with Mr Maassen’s submission that the Environment Court does not sit in an executive plan-making and plan-changing role. That is t...