Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 194 Connor [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   Connor - Direct Referral IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 194 IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to s 87G of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for resource consent to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling and additional structures at 22 Crescent Road, Epsom, Auckland BETWEEN C CONNOR (ENV-2024-AKL-025) Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Consent Authority Court: Ju

2. OIA-118936.pdf [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...options for collaborative arrangements for designing a new system will form part of the April 2022 report back to Cabinet on Royal Commission recommendations. 36. Other avenues for seeking redress identified by the Royal Commission include the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Office of the Ombudsman, Waitangi Tribunal, and the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner. Civil litigation presents challenges for survivors, independently of Limitation Acts 37. The Royal Commission d...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 123 Wiles v University of Auckland [pdf, 536 KB]

   ...nature of what has been a novel and evolving global pandemic in terms that do not exclude science but that are comprehensible to non-scientists. He said that she had the capacity to distil what might otherwise have been the theoretical into the human and the relevant, something that was crucial at a time when people were learning how contagious COVID-19 was. [7] Mr Campbell said that he and his colleagues felt that Associate Professor Wiles had a genuine ability to reach...

4. [2007] NZEmpC AC 18/07 Kingi v Responsive Maintenance 2000 Ltd [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...delay is concerned, I have already set out some of the circumstances surrounding that. The hearing was set down. The defendant was ready to proceed in Morrinsville. It was no fault of the defendant that the matter could not proceed but from humane aspects the Court adjourned the proceedings then because of the bereavement suffered by Mr Kingi and his family. It was then indicated to the Court that the parties would endeavour to resolve the matter. Apparently the defendant has b...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 128 Mana Coach Services Ltd v New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Inc [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...counsel, allocated a hearing of these before the Court on Thursday 30 August 2012. [26] It was not until 30 May 2012 that the application for rehearing was filed by the plaintiff. This was accompanied by a brief affidavit by the plaintiff’s human resources manager. This set out his understanding of the issues remitted to the Court and identified another issue that the deponent said had not been decided in the Court’s judgment 3 of 26 September 2008. The manager, Marau Russel...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 168 Lawson v NZ Transport Agency interlocutory [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...the defendant. [16] Mr Lawson’s primary submission is focussed on access to justice issues. While not cited by either party, I note that in Highgate on Broadway Ltd v Devine Kós J observed that: 13 … Access to justice is an essential human right. The cost of exercising that right is the payment of costs in the event of failure. The right of a successful defendant to costs in that event is arguably subordinate to the plaintiff's right to be heard. Strong social polic...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 77 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Limited [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...for the plaintiff submitted that Rose v Order of St John was of assistance in distilling the relevant principles from previous interpretations of s 148 by the Court. 8 Counsel also referred to Director of Proceedings v O’Malley, where the Human Rights Review Tribunal held that confidentiality attaches to the mediation not an event giving rise to it. 9 It was submitted that on the facts of the present case, the defendant was aware mediation had ended and that the plaintiff...

8. MacMillan v NZ Parole Board [2013] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 61 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 3 Reference No. HRRT 004/2012 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN ANDREW RONALD MACMILLAN PLAINTIFF AND NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Dr SJ Hickey, Member Mr RK Musuku, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr AR MacMillan in person Ms VJ Owen for Defendant DATE OF DECISION: 31 January 2013 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT ST...

9. AD v ZX LCRO 87 / 2010 (14 December 2010) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...the employees on the basis of joint employment. However, I would observe, that any lawyer acting for the Applicant’s clients, would have been provided with this information by the clients themselves, who included the former General Manager and Human Resources Manager. Consequently, the confidentiality of the information obtained by the Applicant in advising on the Q and A sheet may be more illusory than real. [46] The Respondent refers to the comments of Asher J in Hana New Zeala...

10. [2016] NZSSAA 110 (22 December 2016) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...disadvantaged by the application of s 70. [19] In this case it appears that the appellant is subject to differential treatment because she is married and she is married to a non-New Zealand resident. This amounts to discrimination under s 23 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and as such appears to be a breach of s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [20] Section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that whenever any enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with th...