Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 207 Reid v Dunedin City Council [pdf, 825 KB]

   ...Resource Management Act 1991, the Environment Court, by consent, orders that: (1) the appeals are allowed subject to the changes shown in Appendix 1 being made; (2) the parts of the appeals by A Reid and H Evans (DCC Reference numbers 179 and 365), R B and S O Chin (DCC Reference number 176) and James Lin Limited (DCC Reference numbers 116 and 117) are resolved and the appeals are otherwise dismissed. B: Under s285 of the Resource Management Act 1991, there is no order as to

2. CN v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 623 (17 July 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...that U Ltd has profited at CN’s expense. Concluding comments 18. Because I have found that it is more likely than not that the non-refundable/non-returnable policy was on the FQ site, it is not necessary to address the third issue set out in Clause 8 above. 19. CN’s claim is dismissed. Referee: J.F. Tunnicliffe Date: 17 July 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that some...

3. Rihia v Te Runanganui o Ngati Hikairo - Lake Rotoaira Trust (2012) 287 Aotea MB 44 (287 AOT 44) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...THOMAS HURA WALTERS, TE MAARI RANGIKOEA GARDINER AND CHARLOTTE MAREWA SEVERNE Applicants AND TE RŪNANGANUI O NGĀTI HIKAIRO First Respondent AND NGĀTI TURANGITUKUA MĀORI COMMITTEE Second Respondent Hearing: 279 Aotea MB 159, dated 17 February 2012 283 Aotea MB 110, dated 24 April 2012 (Heard at Turangi) Appearances: C Batt, for the Trustees T Wanikau, D Chapman and N Smallman in person Judgment: 19 July 2012 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE LR HA...

4. Tamakehu v Te Uamairangi - Ohotu No.1C No.1 Block (2020) 414 Aotea MB 59 (414 AOT 59) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...Introduction [1] Jenny Tamakehu, Niel Ranginui and Penelope Wiari, trustees of the Ohotu 1C1 Reservation Trust, seek the removal of fellow trustees, Daryn Te Uamairangi and Delores Styles. They argue that the respondent trustees have breached clauses of the marae charter and their duties sufficient to warrant their removal. They also say that their colleagues have failed to properly account for trust funds or for monies that were intended for the benefit of the trust. The applica...

5. [2025] NZLVT 028 – Edwards v Minister for Land Information (17 June 2025) [pdf, 406 KB]

   ...concerns. The claim filed in 2021 included an amount of $7,454,135 as compensation for the land-related loss arising from the taking, and further claims for: (a) any loss which may be separately and subsequently claimed under the provisions of clause 26, Note B of the Agreement; (b) any disturbance claims under s 66(1) of the PWA, which are to be quantified before trial; and (c) interest on the making of any award of compensation between the specified date of 1 December 2016 un...

6. Guidelines: Counsel for subject person - Personal and Property Rights Act [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...person will be sufficiently available to carry out the necessary tasks. (i) Procedures necessary, that is, settlement conference; orders on the papers; directions for hearing; hearing. (j) Powers required by appointee (Schedule 1 - note limits in clauses (n) and (o)). (k) Whether the person needs a will or a new will (s 55). (l) Whether orders should be suspended during an appeal. (m) Whether fees for counsel for the subject person should be paid out of the estate or the Consolidat...

7. Dixon v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 98 [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...(CAC 20004) First respondent AND JOY BAKER Second respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Ms K Davenport QC – Chairperson Mr G Denley – Member Mr J Gaukrodger – Member HEARD at WELLINGTON on 20 October 2014 DATE OF DECISION 5 December 2014 APPEARANCES Ms B Dixon, appellant in person Ms MacGibbon for first respondent Mr J Parker and Ms J A Herd for second respondent DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL [1] This case concerns Ms Dixon’s purchase of a property...

8. Wallasey v Bala LCRO 86 / 2009 (14 September 2009) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...Committee added that both the applicant and the practitioner had been agreeable to the information on the previous complaints file being considered in relation to the present complaints. The earlier complaints had been made in January 2008. [5] The Standards Committee‟s enquiry involved consideration of whether the present complaints had been previously determined by the Canterbury District Law Society for the reason that complaints that have previously been considered cannot be...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 019 Falvey v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...the road reserve. It is not unusual for resource consents to be granted in circumstances where an additional approval is required from other agencies. If the approval was not forthcoming, any grant of consent would not be able to be exercised. [5J In the Council's view, it was probably unlawful for a roading authority to give approval in perpetuity to a third party to occupy the road reserve in the way proposed 2 Critically, the parties agreed that the landscape plans before th...

10. Moala v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 100 (01 October 2014) [pdf, 183 KB]

    ...Complainant: In person Adviser: In person Date Issued: 1 October 2014 2 DECISION This complaint [1] This decision imposes sanctions, following a decision upholding a complaint against Ms Tangilanu published at [2014] NZIACDT 56. The circumstances are set out fully in that decision (which can be located on the Ministry of Justice website: www.justice.govt.nz). [2] In summary the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were: [2.1] The complainant engaged...