Search Results

1. ZT v UU [2025] NZDT 210 (8 July 2025) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accepte...

2. E Ltd v SJ [2025] NZDT 258 (22 July 2025) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accept...

3. GD v TN & NN [2025] NZDT 92 (5 May 2025) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accept...

4. DB v H Ltd [2025] NZDT 98 (9 May 2025) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accept...

5. X Ltd v I Ltd [2025] NZDT 241 (4 July 2025) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accept...

6. BT v TS [2025] NZDT 198 (22 May 2025) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accepte...

7. Monschau v Bamber - Tahorakuri A No1 Sec 33A2 [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 383 (2016 APPEAL 383) [pdf, 227 KB]

   2016 Māori Appellate Court MB 383 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20150005958 APPEAL 2015/19 UNDER Section 79, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF TAHORAKURI A NO 1 SEC 33A 2 BETWEEN SHANE MONSCHAU AND HARRY TE NGARU AS RESPONSIBLE TRUSTEES OF AN AHU WHENUA TRUST IN TAHORAKURI A NO 1 SEC 33A 2 Appellants AND BRUCE BAMBER AND KATHLEEN BAMBER Respondents Hearing: 17 February 2016...

8. Briggs v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 413), Eggers & Knott [2017] NZREADT 81 [pdf, 161 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZREADT 81 READT 016/17 UNDER THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS ACT 2008 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 111 OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS ACT 2008 BETWEEN JULIAN BRIGGS Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 413) First respondent AND BRYCE (HARRY) EGGERS Second respondent AND JASON KNOTT Third respondent Hearing: at Wellington on 27 October 2017...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 219 AB Logistics Limited v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Court: Submissions: . Date of Decision: Date of Issue: A8 Logistics Limited IN THE MATTER AND AND BETWEEN AND AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC .2.\0\ of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 325 of the Act of an application for costs AB LOGISTICS LIMITED (ENV-2017-AKL-171 ) Appellant/Applicant for costs NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent INTERNATIONALS NUTRITIONALS LIMITED s 274 party/Applicant...

10. Council v HL [2020] NZDT1493 (27 February 2020) [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...their actions. However, relevant English and Australian cases have held that the person must be completely incapacitated as a result of the disability to be absolved from liability: for example, Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673 (English Court of Appeal); Carrier v Bonham [2001] QCA 234 (Queensland Court of Appeal). On this view there is no modification of the ordinary objective standard of care and HL would only avoid liability where he did not act at all or there was a complete impai...