Search Results

1. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act SAVE WANAKA LAKEFRONT RESERVE INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-CHC-54) Appellant QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent WANAKA WATERSPORTS FACILITY TRUST Applicant Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner W R Howie Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Hearing: at Wanaka...

2. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act SAVE WANAKA LAKEFRONT RESERVE INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-CHC-54) Appellant QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent WANAKA WATERSPORTS FACILITY TRUST Applicant Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner W R Howie Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Hearing: at Wanaka...

3. Regulatory Impact Statement: Amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 [pdf, 1 MB]

   Regulatory Impact Statement | 1 Regulatory Impact Statement: Amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 Purpose of Document Decision sought: The RIS provides analysis of proposed amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002, to support decision making on each individual proposal. Advising agencies: Ministry of Justice Proposing Ministers: Minister of Justice Date finalised: 30 May 2024 Problem Definition In recent years, there has been a reduction in the use of imprisonment an

4. Pene-Stevens - Puhatikotiko 2C2B2 and 2D (2014) 41 Tairawhiti MB 219 (41 TRW 219) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...– Owhaoko C1 and C2 (2010) Maori Appellate Court MB 34 (2010AP 34) at [16]; and see Garrow and Kelly Law of Trusts and Trustees (sixth edition, pp 523–582 inclusive). 41 Tairawhiti MB 224 [18] In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, that Court noted that in exercising their responsibilities, principles such as the duty of loyalty and good faith, the duty to act personally, and the duty not to profit, apply to Māori land trustees. 2 Those equitable principles ar...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 73 Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Rodkiss [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...NZEmpC 118. 4 Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bilgola Enterprises Ltd (1999) 13 PRNZ 48 (HC) at [8]. 5 Duncan v Osborne Buildings Ltd (1992) 6 PRNZ 85 (CA) at 87. judgment and the need to preserve the position in case the appeal is successful. Often it is possible to secure an intermediate position by conditions or undertakings and each case must be determined on its own circumstances. [12] As counsel for the applicant in this instance submitted, this Cour...

6. Ransfield - Poukawa 9E2 (2011) 13 Takitimu MB 102 (13 TKT 102) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...198 Napier MB 72 (198 NA 71) 13 Takitimu MB 103 considers that an action for damages against the Māori Trustee is necessary. Mr Ransfield has raised issues of trespass and notice and claims to have filed proceedings in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court which he says must be determined before this Court can continue with the present applications for review of trust and enforcement of obligations. [4] The issues for determination therefore are: (a) Do the beneficial ow...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 41 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...Alim’s solicitors brought the matter to the attention of LSG’s solicitor as soon as possible after the Court had rejected the challenge as being out of time. On the other hand, the time limit has been imposed for the purpose of balancing rights of appeal and the desirability of certainty in litigation. A major law firm with a specialist employment law team could be expected to have been aware of the limitation period and planned accordingly. [7] Turning to LSG’s allegation o...

8. AE v Secretary of Justice 18 October 2017 NZRA 004/2017 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ..._______________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. In a decision dated 12 September 2017, The Secretary for Justice (“the Secretary”) declined approval of the Applicant as a Lead Provider in Criminal PAL 4, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, Civil (employment Law), Duty Lawyer and PDLA. 2. She decided that he did not meet the criteria for approval under the Legal Services Act 2011 and the Legal Services (Quality Assurance) Regulations 2011, in pa...

9. LCRO 114/2017 SM v JC (31 August 2017) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...scope of review [20] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … 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...

10. LCRO 16/2018 AD v LN [pdf, 98 KB]

    ...scope of review [11] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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...