[2020] NZEnvC 124 Sidwell v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 5.7 MB]
...s105(1A) would be superfluous were Dr Sidwell 's interpretation correct in that ss37 and 37 A would then cater for all scenarios where a person sought to have a lapse period extended. [22] Ms Riley referred to the observations in the Court of Appeal decision in Body Corporate 9701012 concerning the legislative purpose of s125, as that provision was originally framed. Specifically, she points out that the Court referred with approval to observations the Planning Tribunal made in...