Search Results

1. [2025] NZLVT 005 - Murray v Thames-Coromandel District Council (26 February 2025) [pdf, 206 KB]

   Murray v Thames-Coromandel District IN THE LAND VALUATION TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND I TE TARAIPŪNARA WĀRIU WHENUA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2025] NZLVT 005 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 36 of the Rating Valuations Act 1998 BETWEEN ARTHUR MURRAY (ENV-2024-AKL-252) (ENV-2024-AKL-255) Objector AND THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Tribunal: Judge S M Tepania, Chairperson Last case event: 13 February 2025 Date of Decision: 26 February 2025...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 235 Bowkett v Whangarei District Council [pdf, 200 KB]

   Bowkett v Whangarei District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 235 IN THE MATTER OF appeals against abatement notices under section 325 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN GD BOWKETT (ENV-2023-AKL-150) (ENV-2023-AKL-153) Appellant AND WHANGĀREI DISTRICT COUNCIL NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent IN THE MATTER OF an application for enforcement orders under sec...

3. Implementation

   ...Reka to the District Court Criminal, including Youth Court, and District Court Civil. High Court Civil and Criminal are also included in this phase. Rollout is scheduled to begin from the second half of 2027 Phase 3 Phase 3 will encompass the Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, the Environment Court, Coroners Court, and the Disputes Tribunal, as well as the appeal function for the District Court and High Court. Also included in this phase is full functionality of the rostering and scheduling. R...

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Key initiatives >
   3. Te Au Reka

4. Tane - Hauturu East 8 (2015) 104 Waikato Maniapoto MB 95 (104 WMN 95) [pdf, 8.9 MB]

   .................................................................................................................... [120] Appendices Appendix One: Ruapuha Uekaha Hapu Trust and Tane - Hauturu East 8 (2008) 134 Waikato MB 3 (134 W 3) Appendix Two: Ruapuha and Uekaha Hapu Trust - Hauturu East 8 Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2010 APPEAL 512). Appendix Three: Court’s covering letter and the voting paper Appendix Four: RUHT and Tane/Martin presentations 104 Waik...

5. Court lawyer survey summary of findings [pdf, 469 KB]

   ...courts were compared with those of lawyers from all courts6. Significant differences7 existed in the satisfaction of lawyers from different courts/clusters (Figure 2)8. At higher courts, lawyers were more likely to be satisfied at the: Court of Appeal/Supreme Court (96%) Wellington High Court (95%). 3 Responses from Christchurch lawyers generally reflect the conditions following the 22 February 2011 earthquake, although in...

6. [2008] NZEmpC Maritime Union of NZ Inc and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...statutory consultation requirements, and would amount to unlawful and/or unreasonable directions in employment when implemented. They say the approach to an order for costs in cases such as this is mandated by a line of judgments in the Court of Appeal including Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 and Health Waikato Limited v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172. Following those cases, the Court’s first task is to determine whether the costs actually incurred were reasonably incur...

7. [2009] NZEmpC WC 7/09 NZ Meat Workers Union v Silver Fern Farms [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...3 New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005 at para [16] [18] In Pyne Gould Guinness Ltd v Montgomery Watson (NZ) Ltd4 the Court of Appeal described the use of the surrounding circumstances to ensure the natural meaning of the words is correct as “cross-checking.” [19] In ASTE v Chief Executive of Bay of Plenty Polytechnic5 Judge Colgan (as he then was) held that the i

8. CAC20005 v Sengupta [2015] NZREADT 81 [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...Downtown Apartments Limited [2010] NZREADT 06. 2 E v REAA and N [2013] NZREADT 27 [Tab 1]. 5 was not real estate agency work and the Committee found it did not meet the threshold for laying a charge for misconduct. The Tribunal found on the appeal that: [19] We have considered the facts of what is essentially an employment dispute between [Mr E’s company] and Mr N. There might be (limited) circumstances where an employment dispute could be said to amount to disgraceful...

9. Peters v Foster – Hereheretau B2J8 and B2 K2B (2015) 54 Tairawhiti MB 147 (54 TRW 147) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...prompted the application for removal [14] Counsel for the applicant filed submissions on 20 July 2015 and presented submissions on behalf of the applicant on 21 July 2015. [15] These submissions set out the duties of trustees referring to the Court of Appeal decision in Rameka v Hall to include “the duty of diligence and prudence as an ordinary prudent person of business would exercise and conduct in that business if it were his or her own”. 4 And also that “trustees are sub...

10. Goodhew v CAC 20004 & Anor [2013] NZREADT 100 [pdf, 132 KB]

    ...READT 005/13 IN THE MATTER OF a charge laid under s.91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20004) AND GEORGE GOODHEW Defendant READT 013/13 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN GEORGE GOODHEW Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20004) First Respondent AND MARK SCOTT Second Respondent MEMBERS OF TR...