Search Results

1. 2023 NZPSPLA 081 pdf [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...and opinions are right or wrong would require a reinvestigation of the complaints that form the basis of Ms CD’s investigation. This is not something that it is appropriate for me to do. In addition, it is not within my jurisdiction to decide an appeal against Ms CD’s report as requested by Mr AB. [11] For the reasons outlined above I conclude that Mr AB has not provided any legal or factual grounds for his complaint against Ms CD that are within the jurisdiction of this Authorit...

2. 29-April-2024-B-Property-Group-v-Queenstown-Lakes-District-Council.pdf [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/pre/interpreters-language-and-disability-access/ http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court EC4240_NoticeOfSessionListOfParties SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS Appeal against decision declining consent to construct and operate a lodge and associated facilities at Bob's Cove, Queenstown ENV-2023-331-000001 B Property Group Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council Appeal A...

3. 17 November 2025 Woodstock Quarries Limited v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Facsimile: (03) 365 1740 https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/pre/interpreters-language-and-disability-access/ http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court EC4240_NoticeOfSessionListOfParties SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS Appeal against a decision to decline resource consent to undertake quarry and landfill activities at 513 Trig Road, Woodstock ENV-2024-308-000023 Woodstock Quarries Limited v Canterbury Regional Council & others Appeal Against Decision O...

4. Regulatory Impact Statement Parliamentary privilege bill [pdf, 302 KB]

   1 Regulatory Impact Statement  Parliamentary Privilege Bill  Agency Disclosure Statement  1. This Regulatory Impact Statement has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice.  It analyses options  for  addressing  some  concerns  about  parliamentary  privilege  raised  by  Parliament’s  Privileges  Committee  (Question  of  privilege  concerning  the  defamation  action Attorney‐General  and Gow  v  Leigh, June 2013).  2. O

5. Regulatory Impact Statement: Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal [pdf, 466 KB]

   ...will be a monetised cost to Government. There may be additional monetised costs for insurers and claimants in cases where the tribunal process is used, where those cases may have instead settled informally under the status quo. Where a party then appeals a tribunal decision to the courts, these costs will increase. The initiative may have non-monetised costs for the Government if it does not achieve its objectives (for example, if it slows down progress toward settlement, costs clai...

6. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Attorney-General [2020] NZHRRT 45 [pdf, 626 KB]

   ...Police consent. Following a preliminary hearing before Judge Ryan, the Police withdrew their consent to Mr Smith’s name suppression and the Judge refused to extend it. Judge Ryan did, however, make an interim order for suppression, providing an appeal was lodged within three days. That interim order was to continue until the appeal was determined. [22] An appeal was lodged, and the matter was decided by the High Court in May 2006. Justice Harrison allowed the interim name suppressi...

7. Brown - Kairakau 2C5B (2002) 167 Napier MB 139 (167 NA 139) [pdf, 857 KB]

   ...wanted the block to remain undivided, enabling them to retain their traditional connections with the whole of the block. Minute Book: 167 NA 140 The first judge who heard the application turned it down in 1989 (128 Napier MB 286-289). The Browns appealed his decision, and the Maori Appellate Court sent it back for a rehearing (10 Takitimu ACMB 224-232). In 1991, the judge who conducted the rehearing of the partition application granted it (130 Napier MB 74-84). But then the Maori App...

8. Offord v Patel [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...The question is to what extent is a court entitled to look behind it and say, well yes you were a director of that entity but you’re also personally liable. (Closing submissions, p 22, lines 1-12). [33] Mr Satherley relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517 in which the claimants sued both a “one-person company” and also Mr Trevor Ivory personally as he had given advice to the claimants to use a particular herbicide. It w...

9. Wikiriwhi v Walters - Oruanui 9 Block and Part Oruanui 10 Block, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 471989 and Lot 2 Deposited Plan 471989 (2020) 232 Waiariki MB 212 (232 WAR 212) [pdf, 382 KB]

   ...which that person may be interested or concerned other than as a trustee of another trust. [55] In Fenwick v Naera, the Supreme Court considered the principles relating to conflicts of interest and s 227A:25 [61] … We agree with the Court of Appeal that all trustees participating in decision making must “bring to bear a mind unclouded by any contrary interest”. Nor is it an answer that their fellow trustees all supported the transaction. Section 227A provides that a conflic...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 242 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Thames-Coromandel District Council [pdf, 16 MB]

    IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 242 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under Clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-AKL-143) ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-AKL-147) KEITH VERNON (ENV-2016-AKL-084) WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENV-2016-AKL-146) Appellants AND T...