Search Results

1. Coleman v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 41 [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...Above n 14 at para [25]. 16 Above n 14 at para [26]. THE LIABILITY OF MR APERS [25] The Council applied to join Hans Apers to these proceedings. I declined to join Mr Apers because Ms Coleman made no claim against him. The Council appealed this decision and the High Court upheld the appeal and joined Mr Apers as a party to Ms Coleman’s claim. [26] The High Court considered whether Mr Apers should be joined when Ms Coleman did not wish to proceed with a clai...

2. AM v SB LCRO 316/2012 (28 July 2015) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...Tribunal, but was unsuccessful in defending Mr AM’s claim against him, and did not make out his counter-claim. The Tribunal made orders requiring Mr TX to pay the amount Mr AM had claimed, plus interest. 2 [4] Ms SB then acted on Mr TX’s appeal to the District Court from the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal was unsuccessful, leaving the Tribunal’s orders against Mr TX intact. [5] Ms SB then sent a cheque to Mr AM for the amount of the Tribunal’s orders, plus inte...

3. [2019] NZEnvC 037 Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...advanced arguments in support of its application for rehearing that were without substance. RPL pursued the application for rehearing notwithstanding that the High Court had declined RPL's application to adduce further evidence in support of its appeal against the Environment Court's decisions on the notice of requirement. The High Court's findings were, in substance, on the same matters RPL sought to pursue in its application for rehearing. To proceed with the applicat...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 29 Gestro v Relph [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...remaining emails. He referred to the nine situations where evidence of without prejudice communications might be admissible, as identified by Lord Clarke in Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd,3 followed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Sheppard Industries Ltd v Specialized Bicycle Components Inc.4 One of those exceptions relates to the situation where the exclusion of evidence would act as a cloak for “perjury, blackmail or other serious impropriety”. He sa...

5. [2020] NZREADT 35 - SureCapital (13 August 2020) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...of salespersons is a basic and fundamental requirement that should be at the forefront of any director’s mind. Discussion [30] Ms Lim referred the Tribunal to its decision in Kek v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409).6 This concerned an appeal by a salesperson (Ms Kek) and the agency at which she was engaged, against a Complaints Assessment Committee’s findings of unsatisfactory conduct and penalty orders following a complaint as to misrepresentation of features of a prope...

6. [2020] NZEnvC 016 Caradoc-Davies v Clearwater [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...Mr Garbett submitted that the legal principle identified here comes from a decision of the High Court, Barker v Queenstown Lakes District Counci/4. [13) In paragraph 55 of Barker the High Court quoted from a decision of Somers J in the Court of Appeal, Hill v Wellington Transport Licensing Authority where a number of things were said about the necessity to proceed with such matters in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and until declared invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction,...

7. Ngati Makino Heritage Trust and Ngati Ranginui Incorporated Submissions [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust as a viable approach to the maintenance of Indigenous Biodiversity within the Bay of Plenty. 2 They adopt the submission of the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and an effort has been made to ensure against duplication. 3 The Appeals for Ngati Makino and Ngati Ranginui 1 relate to the need to provide a framework within the Proposed Regional Coastal Environmental Plan (pRCEP) for the development of management area plans. The appeals envisaged that such mechanisms...

8. Auckland Standards Committees 2 and 3 v Mason [2019] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...documents produced at any hearing: (c) an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person. (2) Unless it is reversed or modified in respect of its currency by the High Court on appeal under section 253, an order made under subsection (1) continues in force until such time as may be specified in the order, or, if no time is specified, until the Disciplinary Tribunal, in its discretion, revokes it on the applicat...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 132 Drach v Tasman District Council [pdf, 954 KB]

   DRACH v TDC – FINAL DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2021] NZEnvC 132 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN T & L DRACH (ENV-2020-CHC-141) Appellants AND TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent AND P & L SHIRLEY AND MOTUEKA TRUSTEE (No 2) LIMITED Applicants Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Deputy Environment Commissioner S...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 27 Breen v Prime Resources Company Ltd [pdf, 210 KB]

    ...company submits that it made offers to settle in advance of the hearing which Mr Breen unreasonably declined. In these circumstances costs ought to be awarded to it. Both submissions centre on a concern about wasted costs. [9] As the Court of Appeal has emphasised, in the field of employment law parties should have in mind the importance of conducting litigation with a proper focus on the issues and on the containing of costs.8 Any time-wasting, unreasonable refusal of offers to...