Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 103 Director-General of Conservation v Whangarei District Council [pdf, 280 KB]

   Director-General of Conservation v Whangārei District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2022] NZEnvC 103 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to the package of urban services and plan changes to the Operative Whangārei District Plan AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal in respect of Kauri Dieback Hygiene provisions BETWEEN DIRECTO...

2. 2022-02-11 ORC - MOC - in support of the provisions as agreed at mediation [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...partially operative and the PORPS 2019 which was also partially operative. The most relevant part of the PORPS 2019, Chapter 3, was not operative at the time that Chapter 7 of PC1 was notified. However, given that, at the time, Environment Court appeals on the PORPS 2019 were being resolved, the plan change was prepared to give effect to the PORPS 2019. 9 Following the resolution of all Environment Court appeals, all of the PORPS 2019 provisions were made operative on 15 March 2...

3. [2022] NZACC 195– Lisale v ACC (6 October 2022) [pdf, 190 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2022] NZACC 195 ACR 251/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN TIMOTHY LISALE Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 28 September 2022 Held at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: B Hinchcliff for the Appellant F Becroft for the Respondent J...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 51 Citadel Capital Ltd v Miles [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...granted; (b) whether the challenge is brought and pursued in good faith; 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 143(fa). 7 See similar observations in Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 236 at [31]–[33]. Although the Court of Appeal in Maheta v Skybus NZ Ltd [2022] NZCA 516, [2022] ERNZ 1005 subsequently reversed the central decision in that case, paragraphs [31]–[33] were not affected by the appeal as the Court of Appeal was focusing on the issue of whether a chal...

5. LCRO 171/2023 PF v DS (1 February 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...scope of review [33] 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...

6. [2024] NZREADT 29 - CS v REAA (3 September 2024) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...the applicant raised a number of concerns in relation to the Registrar’s decision which we summarise as follows: (a) The decision of the Registrar was “completely wrong”. (b) The Registrar was wrong to consider the fact that he did not appeal the Registrar’s decision on his first complaint, when making a decision on his second complaint. (c) The Registrar specifically withheld information and lies from the licensee despite an Official Information Act 1982 request being g...

7. National Standards Committee 2 v Mulligan [2025] NZLCDT 32 (1 July 2025) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ALL INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS MADE PREVENTING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF THE PRACTITIONER CONTINUE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OR THE EXPIRY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR THE PENALTY DECISION. IT IS NOTED THAT IF THE LIABILITY APPEAL IS NOT PURSUED THEN IT IS AGREED THAT SUPPRESSION CAN LAPSE. THE PERMANENT ORDERS PREVENTING THE PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES, OTHER THAN MADISON BROWN OR ROBERT TOWNER REMAIN IN FORCE. THESE ORDERS MADE PURSUANT T...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 101 Pottinger & Nine Dot consulting Ltd v Carew and Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...the maximum likely to be upheld at the substantive hearing. In doing so, the Court relied on its then recent survey of the length of restraints in Walley v Gallagher Group Ltd. 32 Both Servilles and Gallagher were decided before the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Fuel Espresso Ltd v Hsieh. 33 There the Court emphasised the sanctity of contracts and the importance of enforcing reasonable restraints. 34 [53] The restraint on contacting or working for customers in this case is...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 207 Nee Nee v C3 Ltd [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...calculate your final pay entitlements and provide you with you[r] final payslip in the coming days. Please return immediately your Ports of Auckland Hoist card, Ports of Auckland Gate pass and all C3 branded protective clothing. You are entitled to appeal this decision within three days of receiving this letter. If you wish to lodge an appeal, you must notify our CEO Dean Camplin in writing the specific grounds upon which you wish to appeal the decision in accordance with the pr...

10. LCRO 240/2013 TM v DC (8 May 2017) [pdf, 365 KB]

    ...personal grievance application. It stated that the parties were in an existing employment relationship and directed them to “make arrangements necessary for [that relationship] to continue in light of this determination”.8 [17] Mr TM did not appeal the determination. 3 Email TM to [[company] including his manager] (26 February 2010). Mr TM says that he provided Ms DC with this evidence for the ERA hearing held in [date]. 4 At...