Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 237 View West Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 237 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act VIEW WEST LIMITED Appellant (ENV-2017-AKL-0001S1) AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J A Smith Environment Commissioner ACE Leijnen Environment Commissioner W R Howie K G Stevenson (Special Advisor) Hearing: at Auckland 26-30 November

2. Webster v Takarangi - Ngarara West B3B (2007) 195 Aotea MB 127 (195 AOT 127) [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...dated 23 December 2003; 144 Aotea ME 105 dated 15 September 2004 and 180 Aotea ME 15 dated 21 December 2006. [6] A conference was convened on 13 November 2007 following which proceedings were adjourned until 15 November 2007. I directed counsel to file submissions on the issues of limitation, the identity of the defendants and the application generally. Mr Takarangi was then given a further day to provide a response to any submissions filed by Mr Watson. Submissions in support [...

3. AML/CFT Statutory Review - summary of submissions [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   Review of the AML/CFT Act Summary of submissions Ministry of Justice March 2022 Important notice The opinions contained in this document are those of the Ministry of Justice and do not reflect official government policy. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice from a qualified professional person before undertaking any action in reliance on the contents of this publication. The contents of this discussion document must not be constr

4. [2010] NZEMPC 143 Musa v Whanganui DHB & Anor [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...Musa’s costs of prosecuting his claims against Mr Solomon. [3] For a claim for penalties that could not, at best or worst, have amounted to more than about $10,000, the plaintiff and the second defendant have expended significant sums on legal fees. That is partly because of the way in which the proceeding went. Mr Musa’s claims were originally brought in the Employment Relations Authority but removed to this Court. They were then for substantial sums of damages, more than...

5. [2010] NZEmpC 141 Masina v Commissioner of Te Kura Kaupapa Maori O Piripono Te Kura Whakahou O Otara [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...Musa’s costs of prosecuting his claims against Mr Solomon. [3] For a claim for penalties that could not, at best or worst, have amounted to more than about $10,000, the plaintiff and the second defendant have expended significant sums on legal fees. That is partly because of the way in which the proceeding went. Mr Musa’s claims were originally brought in the Employment Relations Authority but removed to this Court. They were then for substantial sums of damages, more than...

6. Stone - Pukepuke Tangiora Estate (2013) 26 Takitimu MB 64 (26 TKT 64) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...their voting proposals with the Court. As soon as I became away of the inordinate delay that had 1 See the Mäori Purposes Act 1943 and amendments 26 Takitimu MB 66 occurred with this file I directed the case manager to liaise with counsel to arrange as hearing without delay and in due course this was done on 31 July 2013. Submissions [7] By memorandum dated 7 August 2013 counsel confirms that traditionally the trust ha...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 128 Taiapa v Te Runanga o Turanganui a Kiwa [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...that Mr Taiapa can provide to the defendant at no cost to it which, in turn, would represent a saving of expenditure by it. That would be not unlike arrangements that are sometimes made by parents of children unable to afford their schools’ fees or, indeed, like the arrangements for volunteer community work that act as a form of reparation in other courts. The Employment Court has no power to direct such arrangements but that would not stop the parties agreeing to make them and...

8. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...assessor’s report. Two reports arranged by DBH were relied upon before the Tribunal identifying a number of defects causing water ingress and that the cost of remediating the damage would be $106,221.00 including GST plus the cost of professional fees. Decision Is the claim time-barred? The parties did not refer to s 37 of the Act which provides a special approach to limitation periods. This claim was therefore treated as abandoned. Was the house a commercial building? Th...

9. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...striving to achieve an imposing building. He assumed the responsibility of the project management and supervision by taking on the role normally undertaken by an architect. By engaging Mr Jarman as a labour-only contractor, thus saving the supervision fees and margins payable when the builder is hired to take overall responsibility for a project, he came to shoulder this responsibility. The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mr Olsson has liability due to his negligence as the supervisi...

10. O'Connor v MacDee McLennan Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 67 [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...am not able to apportion responsibility between them for the payment of the awarded amount. If any of the liable respondents wishes me to make an order they should give notice to the other respondents and the Tribunal by 21 December 2011 and file affidavit evidence in support by 31 January 2012. The other Page 9 respondents will have 15 working days to reply and then, if justified, an apportionment can be made. [40] Apportionment issues do not affect the respondents’ lia...