Search Results

1. LCRO 162/2019 SD, JK and DZ v RE (5 May 2020) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...fundamentally the same as the earlier iterations, but on different dates. As counsel appearing before the Court, Mr RE had obligations to the Court and to the administration of justice. As the Court of Appeal put it, the purpose of r 13.5.3 was not to protect the applicants’ interests.3 When the conduct occurred, the applicants were not, and had not been for quite some time, Mr RE’s clients. [14] That is significant. Although any person may make a complaint about the conduct...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 146 Alkazaz v Asparona Ltd [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...4 Quality Consumables Ltd v Hannah (No 2) [2017] NZEmpC 155 at [12]. 5 McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd [2002] 16 PRNZ 747 (CA) at [15]-[16]. is not to be lightly denied. Against that, defendants are entitled to be protected against being drawn into unjustified litigation, particularly where it is over complicated and unnecessarily protracted. In the overall balance which the Court must consider, the issue of the likely merits of the claims also needs t

3. LCRO 42/2022 QA v Kennelly - Publication decision (1 August 2023) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...decision is the impact that publication would have on Mr Kennelly’s interests and privacy. Mr Kennelly has not made any submission directed to this factor and his abbreviated response to my request for submissions would indicate that he does not care much about the possibility of publication, other than the statement that the decision should not be published. 6 Kennelly response to application for review (27 April 2022) at [24]. 7 A gift of $130,000 to enable Mr and Mrs M to sec...

4. 20240514-Oranga-Tamariki-Repeal-of-Section-7AA-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...Oranga Tamariki interacts.10 18. Oranga Tamariki has made commitments to maintain all current Strategic Partnership Arrangements entered into and intends to continue to enter into new agreements to help tamariki and rangatahi to thrive in the care and protection of their whānau, hapū 6 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 4(g). 7 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 4(h). 8 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 448B. 9 Waitangi Tribunal, The Oranga Tamariki (Section 7AA) Urgent Inquiry Report (Wai 3...

5. Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee 2 v Fordyce [2025] NZLCDT 27 (11 June 2025) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...we have considered Mr Matsis’ submission without regard to those precedents which had not considered his submission. [9] We are not persuaded to gloss the statutory words in the way contended by Mr Matsis. The provision has the purpose of protecting the reputation of the profession. When members of the public learn that a lawyer has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, they are entitled to draw inferences about the profession without being put on inquiry ab...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 238 Coast Road Resilience Group Inc v West Coast Regional Council [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   CRRG v WCRC & GDC – CONSENT ORDER IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 238 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN COAST ROAD RESILIENCE GROUP INCORPORATED (ENV-2024-CHC-41) Appellant AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL First Respondent AND GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL Second Respondent Environment Judge P A Steven – sitting alone under s279

7. [2018] NZEnvC 083 Willowridge Developments Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 11 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Court: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [20181 NZEnvC 83 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to section 120 of the Act WILLOWRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (ENV-2017 -CHC-27) Appellant QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner J R Mills Environment Commissioner D J Bunting Hearing: at Wanaka on 4 and 5 December

8. 2021-03-08 ORC - Opening Subs (Philip Maw) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...land on a whole-of-catchment basis, including the effects on receiving environments. (3) Policy 7: The loss of river extent and values is avoided to the extent practicable. (4) Policy 9: The habitats of indigenous freshwater species are protected. (5) Policy 10: The habitat of trout and salmon is protected, insofar as this is consistent with Policy 9. (6) Policy 11: Freshwater is allocated and used efficiently, all existing over-allocation is phased out, and future over-a...

9. Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club Ltd - Horowhenua (11) Lake (2013) 304 Aotea MB 288 (304 AOT 288) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...5. Long Term: This is a matter to be addressed at some point in the future. We agreed that the legislation for whatever reason is confusing and probably anachronistic in need of a revamp. Clearly that is a matter that would need to be managed very carefully so as not to have any adverse impact on the beneficial owners’ existing legal interests. Happy to discuss any of the above with you by phone if you wish. Otherwise we look forward to your response regarding funding. Kind...

10. RH v LV LCRO 189 / 2011 (25 September 2012) [pdf, 126 KB]

    ...evident from its decision that the Committee’s perception that the Practitioner had embarked on an ill-conceived adventure was relevant to its conclusion that the practitioner had ‘chosen to ignore’ the intervention rule. Its reference to the protective function of that rule implied that had there been an instructing solicitor such a step would not have been taken. Of particular concern to the Committee was that this conduct related to a draft Statement of Claim found on the P...