Search Results

1. Koyama v New Zealand Law Society (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 29 [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...28 May 2013 decision Mr Koyama had made a clear representation that he had filed all of his submissions: [5.1] On 13 February 2013 Mr Koyama filed 14 pages of submissions in opposition to the NZLS costs application. [5.2] After the Court of Appeal on 17 April 2013 dismissed Mr Koyama’s application for special leave to appeal, the Secretary of the Tribunal by email dated 21 May 2013 notified Mr Koyama that should he wish to take advantage of 3 a final opportunity to file sub...

2. Adams v Easthope (on appeal) [2012] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...building company, actually performed the construction of the house he was personally responsible for the defects which resulted in the dwelling leaking and therefore personally owed Mrs Dicks, the home owner, a duty of care. [11] The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor4 considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.5 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in that case was not an element of every...

3. Rainey v Martin - Taimaro 2B (2017) 162 Taitokerau MB 62 (162 TTK 62) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...she was seeking an order requiring Joan to vacate the land, however, she changed her position and now only seeks the relief sought above. 3 Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club –Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 60 (2014 APPEAL 60). 162 Taitokerau MB 65 [35] The test to ascertain whether the learned judge properly exercised his discretion whether to grant the injunction or not, is that which applies to permanent injunctions. [36] Mr Taylor referred...

4. LG v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 32 (27 May 2013) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...misconduct. He also engaged in disparaging people due to their ethnicity. [3] The facts are fully set out in the decision upholding the complaint. The Parties’ Positions on Sanctions [4] In response to the decision Mr Hakaoro said he would appeal the decision, and criticised the Tribunal’s process. He did not make any submission on the appropriate sanctions. He also sought an order directing that the decision not be published until he lodged an appeal. [5] Through her counsel...

5. BORA Land Transport Amendment Bill [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...per McGrath J. 3 Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [225]. 4 See, for example, Attorney-General v P F Sugrue Ltd (2003) 7 HRNZ 137 (CA). 3 WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND Published by Order of the House of Representatives - 2016 14.2 a person may appeal against impoundment, first to an authorised officer and then to the courts, on the grounds in s 102 of the Land Transport Act, including that the enforcement did not have reasonable grounds of belief to seize the vehicle. Impoundment...

6. RX v GR LCRO 27/2014 (15 February 2017) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...Scope of Review [10] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

7. The Trustees of Part Rotomaha Parekarangi 8 Reservation v Cochrane - Part Rotomahana Pakrekarangi 8 Reservation (2020) 247 Waiariki MB 34 (247 WAR 34) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...consent of the parties as to the terms of reference any expert. While ideally that would be preferable, often highly contested proceedings, by their very nature, render that prospect remote. [12] This jurisdiction was referred to by the Court of Appeal in its important judgment Proprietors of Mangakino Township v Maori Land Court.2 In that case, this Court’s 247 Waiariki MB 37 appointment of auditors under s 351 of Act was held to be inappropriate and artificial. This...

8. [2020] NZEnvC 156 Darby Planning Limited Partnership v Queenstown Lakes District Council.pdf [pdf, 833 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I MUA I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Kl OTAUTAHI IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2020] NZEnvC 156 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act DARBY PLANNING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (ENV-2018-CHC-150) and all other appellants concerning Topic 1 of Stage 1 of the Proposed Queenstown Lakes District Plan (as set out in the Schedule attached) Appellants QUEENSTOWN LA...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 167 The Friends of Sherwood Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...questions of security for costs. (3) Given that discharges of 1080 are authorised by virtue of regulations under ss 360(h) and 15(1)(d), does this cover "deposit" of 1080 under s 13(1)(d) of the Act? This is the matter that was subject to appeal in Brook Valley 6 Community Group Inc v Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust. 1 The parties agree that the substantive issue before the Court of Appeal has been to hearing in August but no decision has yet issued. Ms Grey advises...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Devoy [2024] NZLCDT 22 (1 August 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

    ...omissions in a decision but those steps fall well short of setting aside a conclusory decision. There is no express statutory power to rehear a concluded proceeding. [7] It is arguable that the path to rectify this unusual mistake is by way of appeal. On the other hand, there is no apparent fault in process or reasoning in our 2023 decision. The fault was external. [8] We commend the applicants for pursuing this matter. It offends justice that the 2023 decision should remain....