Search Results

1. [2019] NZEnvC 014 Arthurs Point Land Trust v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 7.3 MB]

   ...("GSL") of section 274 notices. B: Under section 279(1) RMA of the Environment Court rules: (a) subject to (c) , that the appeal by the UCESI generally raises the issue of the location of the Outstanding Natural Landscape ("ONL") lines at Arthurs Point; (b) that Arthurs Point Outstanding Natural Landscape Society Incorporated ("APONLSI") may use its section 274 notice on the UCESI appeal to seek a different ONL boundary and classification on the pro...

2. Deputy Registrar - Kapowai A1A, A1B, A2A, A2B1, A2B2, A3, C1 and C2 Blocks (2010) 7 Taitokerau MB 125 (7 TTK 125) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 7 TAITOKERAU MB 125 (7 TTK 125) A20100008406 IN THE MATTER OF Kapowai A1A, A1B, A2A, A2B1, A2B2, A3, C1 and C2 Blocks ML 12835 ML 12839 DEPUTY REGISTRAR Applicant (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 30 June 2010 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Introduction [1] A survey requisition has been issued under s 332 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (“1993 Act”) in relation to Kapowai A1A, A1B, A2A, A2B1, A2B2, A3...

3. [2019] NZEnvC 160 Hawthenden Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 21 MB]

   ...of what is sought to be protected. Listing those values that inform why a feature or landscape is an ONF or ONL is an important further element of setting out what is sought to be protected. That is particularly given the significant element of judgment required to select features and landscapes as "sufficiently natural" to warrant identification as ONFs or ONLs. In particular, that selection includes choices as to the significance or otherwise of human modifications to a...

4. ZQN Apartments TRI 2021-100-001 Procedural Order 9 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...submission that the BNZ Branch Properties decision is a major departure from the established case law and the decision of Body Corporate 328392 has fully examined Justice Clark’s reasoning in BNZ Branch Properties and declined to follow her judgment. Counsel for the fourth respondent submits that this is not a complicated matter and the claim against the fourth respondent is quite clearly time-barred under s 393(2) of the Building Act. I agree with that submission and my reaso...

5. Whats New for lawyers providing Legal Aid

   ...Digitisation of Legal Aid Forms Change to Black & White Pre-Printed Forms Legal Aid Lawyers for Abuse in Care – Royal Commission Recommendation Implemented Changes to Communication Assistance services from 1 July Case Review Hearing Best Practice Guidelines and Judge Alone Trial Protocols to go-live 1 August 2025 Changes to Duty Lawyer Travel Policy now live Reminder on the change to the instruction booking process for clients in the Department of Corrections’ custody Hearing date for...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Legal aid lawyers

6. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Tennet [2022] NZLCDT 37 (26 October 2022) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...generally charged $3,450, Mr Tennet exhibited18 two pages that presented as copy printouts of searches of his 14 Bundle p 238. 15 Bundle p 190. 16 Bundle p 232. 17 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2009] 1 NZLR 1 (SC) at [101] (majority judgment). 18 Mr Tennet’s affidavit 25 August 2022, Exhibit B. 7 “Practise Account” for payments referencing the Trust. In respect of each of those 20 entries,19 the names of his clients were redacted. None was less than...

7. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...other parties. The Morars’ application for removal was declined. Joinder of Body Corporate 88315 [15] In closing submissions the claimants sought to join Body Corporate 88315 as a further respondent to the proceedings relying on the judgment of Heath J in Body Corporate 188529 & Ors v North Shore City Council & Ors (No. 3) (Sunset Terraces) [30 April 2008] HC, Auckland, CIV 2004-404-3230. Counsel for the claimants submitted that if a body corporate has standing fo...

8. [2025] NZEmpC 167 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Maritime Union of New Zealand and Anor [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...(Heard at Christchurch) Appearances: R Wooders and Z Fong, counsel for Lyttelton Port Company Limited S Mitchell KC and A Drumm, counsel for Maritime Union of New Zealand and Rail and Maritime Transport Union Incorporated Judgment: 8 August 2025 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN Table of Contents This judgment resolves two challenges ................................................................. [1] The background to these proceedings is a restruct...

9. BE v W Ltd & KN [2024] NZDT 885 (15 December 2024) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...interest in any land, or to any franchise is in question.” (S.11(5) Disputes Tribunal Act). 13. KN and W Ltd (the respondents) have said in consolidated submissions dated 6 November 2024 at Clause 6 “To be clear, it is not accepted that the judgement (meaning the District Court Judgement in [redacted]) was necessarily correct on the encroachment point. This would need to be determined on detailed surveying evidence, presumably by a cadastral surveyor. No detailed surveying eviden...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 165 VGM v JXC [pdf, 171 KB]

    ...permanent non-publication BETWEEN VGM Plaintiff AND JXC Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: S Mitchell KC and A Drumm, counsel for plaintiff M Dew KC and D Josephs, counsel for defendant Judgment: 7 August 2025 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (NO 4) OF JUDGE M S KING (Application for non-publication) [1] These proceedings were brought as a challenge to the determination of the Employment Relations Authority (...