Search Results

1. [2021] NZEnvC 162 Public and Population Health Unit of the Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...temperature, atmospheric stability); 5. Appropriateness of particle size and release height, particularly in relation to spray- sensitive areas and buffer zones; 6. Presence and condition of shelter belts; 7. Fit for purpose equipment and personal protective equipment; 8. Confirmation that notification has been carried out and required signage is in place (see C3 and C4); 9. Confirmation that any relevant regulatory requirements can be complied with; 10. Confirmation that al...

2. [2021] NZEnvC 162 Public and Population Health Unit of the Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...temperature, atmospheric stability); 5. Appropriateness of particle size and release height, particularly in relation to spray- sensitive areas and buffer zones; 6. Presence and condition of shelter belts; 7. Fit for purpose equipment and personal protective equipment; 8. Confirmation that notification has been carried out and required signage is in place (see C3 and C4); 9. Confirmation that any relevant regulatory requirements can be complied with; 10. Confirmation that al...

3. LCRO 117/2022 VN v SC (16 May 2024) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...decision. [103] Pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, a Review Officer may direct such publication of his or her decision as the Review Officer considers necessary or desirable in the public interest. “Public interest” engages issues such as consumer protection, public confidence in legal services and the interests and privacy of individuals. [104] Having had regard to the issues raised by this review, I have concluded that it is desirable in the public interest that this decision be pu...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 157 Hall v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...[80] It then goes on to expand on these allegations. Paragraphs 55–61 [81] In relation to the wrong interpretation of the Vaccinations Order, the letter claimed that FENZ was not captured by the Order as it was not a health or disability care provider. It stated that it was therefore arguable that many, perhaps all, of the roles identified by FENZ as being covered, were not actually covered. 32 Creedy v Commissioner of Police, above n 6, at [29]–[30]. [82] While...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 157 Howard v Carter Holt Harvey Packing Ltd [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...comprehensively. d) Subsequently, Mr Howard was reinstated to permit the disciplinary process to be concluded. Mr Guy received Mr Walker’s affidavit and spoke to Mr Lal by telephone. Mr Lal was a crucial witness whose credibility needed to be carefully assessed by Mr McCarthy as the ultimate decision-maker. On the facts which he needed to investigate, this could not be undertaken satisfactorily by telephone. e) Mr Guy’s colleague, Ms Bockett, spoke to four of the five witn...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 77 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 301 KB]

   SHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA (NISHA ALIM) v LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 77 [20 June 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 77 ARC 22/14 IN THE MATTER OF of an application for costs AND IN THE MATTER of an application for joinder AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a compliance order BETWEEN SHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA (NISHA ALIM) Plaintiff AND LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMIT

7. Environment Court of New Zealand Annual Review 2017 [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...Registrar of the Court. Meantime the officers of the applicant company placed it into liquidation. The liquidator expressly took no part in the costs debate. In the absence of effective opposition, the Court was obliged to weigh the claims most carefully. Higher than normal costs were awarded (50% of moneys expended) to the community group, largely because of the difficulties repeatedly created by the applicant in what the Court described in its decision as a “lengthy, tortuous...

8. Gilbert v Mulligan - Part 3 Lot DP 3020 and others (Shelly Bay) (2023) 466 Aotea MB 164 (466 AOT 164) [pdf, 487 KB]

   466 Aotea MB 164 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District A20190007225 WĀHANGA Under Sections 18(1)(i), 237 and 238, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Part 3 Lot Deposited Plan 3020 and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 339948 and Others (Shelly Bay) I WAENGA I A Between MIKE TE WHAREHURU GILBERT, MARTHA HINEONE GLIBERT, KAREN MARAMA PARATA, MABEL URU TANIRAU

9. The Māori Trustee v Smith - Waipaoa 5A2 (2017) 72 Tairāwhiti MB 57 (72 TRW 57) [pdf, 546 KB]

   ...vehicle for the estate but is also being an effectively personal or the company that has enabled my clients to gain a substantial amount of its income from. So there again there is a need to simply, or not simply, the opposite of simply, to be very careful about how the negotiations and the reorganisation is progressed with because again the personal cost comes all on one side in unravelling these unduly entwined elements. The Court: Just on that point, Dr Gilling, there is good...

10. [2021] NZEnvC 106 Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a Rua Incorporated v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 861 KB]

    ...notes and outcomes discussed at the forum meeting. G16. At least two weeks prior to hosting any meeting of the TDWF, the Consent Holder shall by way of formal correspondence issue invitations to the following parties: a. Water & Environmental Care Assn. Inc, b. Water Protection Society Inc, c. MidCentral District Health Board, d. Manawatu Estuary Trust, e. Wellington Fish and Game, f. John Bent, g. Christina Paton, h. Corny and Charlotte Andrews, i. A representative...