Search Results

1. Wright v Ngamoki-Cameron - Heretatua (manu on the Tītī Island of Taukihepa) [2015] Chief Judge's MB 108 (2015 CJ 108) [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...AND ELIZABETH SARAH WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 December 2013 at 2013 Chief Judge's MB 1044-1100 (Heard at Invercargill) Appearances: Leone Farquhar for Elizabeth Sarah Wright Carl Ngamoki-Cameron for himself Judgment: 17 March 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC Copies to: McCaw Lewis Lawyers, DX GP 20020, PO Box 9348, Hamilton 3240 Attention: Leone Farquhar: leone.farquhar@mccawlewis.co.nz mailto:...

2. Solomon v Johnson - Te Mata E3 Block (2017) 139 Waikato Maniapoto MB 240 (139 WMN 240) [pdf, 508 KB]

   ...RIKIRANGI REX JOHNSON AND HECTOR CONNOR Respondents Hearing: 2-3 November 2016 (Heard at Hamilton) Appearances: Ms Kelly Dixon and Ms Alisha Castle, Counsel for the applicants Mr Curtis Bidois, Counsel for the respondents Judgment: 02 May 2017 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE S TE A MILROY Copies to: K Dixon and A Castle, Dixon & Co Lawyers, P O Box 10081 Dominion Road, Auckland, kelly@dixonandcolawyers.com and a...

3. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...decision".41 We agree. [66] Section 1 04 enables, rather than requires, a decision-maker to disregard adverse effects of an activity on the environment if a plan 'permits an activity with that effect'. That allows for the exercise of sensible judgment. For the following reasons, we find it would be non-sensical to ignore the effects of removing trees and of recreational activities, given the evidence. On the evidence, the trees contribute to the amenity values of the...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...decision".41 We agree. [66] Section 1 04 enables, rather than requires, a decision-maker to disregard adverse effects of an activity on the environment if a plan 'permits an activity with that effect'. That allows for the exercise of sensible judgment. For the following reasons, we find it would be non-sensical to ignore the effects of removing trees and of recreational activities, given the evidence. On the evidence, the trees contribute to the amenity values of the...

5. Ryang v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 21 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...City Council & Ors (No 3) (Sunset Terraces);9 and Body Corporate 1889855 & Ors v North Shore City Council & Ors (Byron Avenue). [37] In Sunset Terraces, Heath J defined the duty of a local authority as follows:10 [220] In my judgment, a territorial authority owes a duty of care to anyone who acquires a unit, the intended use of which has been disclosed as residential in the plans and specifications submitted with the building consent application or is known to...

6. LCRO 33/2016 GW v AX (27 June 2018) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...the CPLR, and the provisional remedy of civil arrest that was carried into the CPLR as Article 61 was repealed in 1979” (Siegel, New York Practice, 4th edition, section 513). In fact, when body execution did exist, it was for the enforcement of judgments and not for compulsion of payment prior to the existence of a judgment. [70] That view was adopted without qualification by the Supreme Court of Colorado which said:23 20 We find nothing in section 12-5-120 that would permit an att...

7. Ward v Maccol Developments Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...December 2006] which he said was relevant to a number of issues which were raised by the parties to the adjudication in their opening and closing submissions. The other parties were subsequently invited to file further submissions in relation to the judgment in the Dicks case and further submissions were subsequently filed by the First, Second and Third respondents in early April 2007. I believe those further submissions, together with the earlier closing submissions, helpfully ca...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 52 Dillon v Tullycrine Ltd [pdf, 230 KB]

   CHRISTOPHER DILLON v TULLYCRINE LIMITED [2020] NZEmpC 52 [28 April 2020] ORDER FOR NON-PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION CONTAINED AT [51] OF THIS JUDGMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2020] NZEmpC 52 EMPC 394/2018 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER DILLON Plaintiff AND TULLYCRINE LIMITE...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 185 McPherson v Oji Fibre Solutions (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...MCPHERSON Applicant AND OJI FIBRE SOLUTIONS (NZ) LIMITED Respondent Hearing: Submissions-only hearing held on 12 October 2022 Appearances: S R Mitchell, counsel for applicant D J France, counsel for respondent Judgment: 17 October 2022 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] This decision resolves an application by the applicant, Stephen McPherson, for special leave to remove a personal grievance proceeding from the Employ...

10. 2022-02-11 Statement of Evidence of Rachel Ozanne dated 11 February 2022 incl appendices [pdf, 2.9 MB]

    IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE ENV-2020-CHC-128 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) IN THE MATTER of the Omnibus Plan Change - Plan Change 8, being part of a proposal of national significance directed by the Minister for the Environment to be referred to the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA AND IN THE MATTER of an application under section 149T of the RMA