5365 items matching your search terms
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2025] NZLCRO 070 Ref: LCRO 11/2024 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN GD and CZ Applicants AND BO Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr GD (f
-BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 175 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an application for declarations under s 311 of the Act NZ BUILDING AND PROJECTS LIMITED and RUBAN MAHABIR (ENV-2017-AKL-74) Applicants AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan (Sitting alone under section 309 of the Act) Hearing: at Auckland on 28 September 2017 Appearances: Dr J Forret for the applicants S Q
...incentives for employers, thereby inadvertently encouraging non-compliance as a business risk worth taking. Such an outcome would seriously undermine Parliament’s intent in enacting the pecuniary penalty provisions, and the integrity of the protections against incursion into minimum employment entitlements. [80] The Labour Inspector accepts that proportionality must be applied to reflect the amount originally at issue and the fact that the defendants are closely related. I do no...
...finding of a breach of the rules is effectively a determination of unsatisfactory conduct. [61] Ms Copeland also submitted that to find unsatisfactory conduct then use the s 80(2) power to take no further action would be contrary to the consumer protection focus of the Act. She further submitted that if a Committee or the Tribunal is to take no further action on a complaint then it benefits licensees to have the discretion exercised before there is any finding of unsatisfactory con...
...Hemi, a trustee of the Hemi Whānau Trust, opposes the application. He submits that public use of the roadway has caused significant disturbance to his whānau’s use and enjoyment of their land. The erection of a gate was, therefore, necessary to protect their property rights and prevent uninvited vehicular access. [4] The issue for determination is whether a permanent injunction should be granted requiring Mr Hemi to remove the gate he has erected and to stop any party from bloc...
...be met. As with all large-scale infrastructure projects, the construction of the Project will result in environmental effects, and potential effects, that need to be addressed and managed. The construction methodology for the Project has been carefully developed to consider and address adverse effects and potential adverse effects. This includes discussions with subject-matter experts (for example, noise and vibration experts) working on the Project, and with submitters and stakeho...
Proa cti ve R ele as e Ministry of Justice Proactive release of material related to submissions on proposed changes to political donation rules Date of issue: 20 January 2023 Some information has been withheld on the basis that it would not, if requested under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), be released. Where that is the case, the relevant section of the OIA has been noted and no public interest has been identified that would outweigh the reasons for withholding it.
Before the Environment Court In the matter of And In the matter of And In the matter of Between And ENV-2016-AKl the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) an appeal under s 156(1) of the LGATPA against a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (Hearings Panel) on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) Proposed Plan
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME AND OCCUPATION OF APPELLANT PROHIBITED BY S 160 OF THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 SEE Minute 19 March 2024 at end of judgment IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 182 ACR 257/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN AU Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 10 May 2023
1 (1) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF BOTH PLAINTIFFS (2) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF FIVE OTHER INDIVIDUALS (3) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION (4) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF THE CHAIRPERSON IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHRRT 24 I TE TARAIP