Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 038 Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...the Poutama appeal that the Poutama Trust did not fall into any of the above categories in relation to site Q18/77 or in relation to the area in which the pipe removal works would be carried out. First Gas noted the following passage from the judgment:9 … The [Environment] Court was entitled to find that, as Poutama does not have a proprietorial interest in the land, and are not tangata whenua, that they were not directly affected by the grant of the Authority. First Gas argue...

2. [2021] NZACC 194 - Hooker v ACC (2 December 2021) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...NEVILLE HOOKER Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 26 November 2021 Held at: Rotorua/Rotorua-Nui-A-Kahumatamomoe Appearances: A Carlyle for the appellant F Becroft for the respondent Judgment: 2 December 2021 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for weekly compensation - s 103(2), Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 16 November 2020....

3. Stryder v Accident Compensation Corporation (Interest on backdated weekly compensation) [2024] NZACC 124 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 11 July 2024 Held at: Christchurch/Ōtautahi Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented I Hunt for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 24 July 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for interest on backdated weekly compensation - s 114(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a...

4. Peta v Hemara - Succession to Henry Peta [2023] Chief Judge's MB 731 (2023 CJ 731) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...And ROSITA SHARON HEMARA Te kaiurupare Respondent Nohoanga: Hearing 2 June 2021, 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 788-804 (Heard at Rotorua via Zoom) Kanohi kitea: Appearances T A Thompson for Respondent Whakataunga: Judgment date 10 November 2023 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ MATUA C L FOX Judgment of Chief Judge C L Fox Copies to: T A Thompson, Ranfurly Chambers Ltd, 143 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland 105...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Andersen [2012] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...that striking off is the only proper professional disciplinary response. [70] Mr Morris referred the Tribunal to the decision of Bolton v Law Society,1 and to the decision of the full Court of the High Court in Dorbu v NZLS2 and the very recent judgment of Williams J in B v Canterbury Standards Committee No. 1 of the NZLS.3 [71] With respect we consider that the behaviour of the practitioners in the Dorbu and B cases respectively was far more reprehensible than that of Ms Andersen....

6. LCRO 382/2013 SC v JT (30 June 2017) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [22] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:4 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 198 Aquastar Holdings Limited v Kawerau District Council [pdf, 841 KB]

   ...with s 278 of the Act and Rule 11.10 of the District Courts Rules 2014, the Court has the power to correct errors including accidental slips or omissions. Rule 11.10 is set out as follows: 11.10 Correction of accidental slip or omission (1) A judgment or order may be corrected by the court or the Registrar who made it, if it- (a) contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, whether or not made by an officer of the court; or (b) is drawn u...

8. [2019] NZCAA 13 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 384 KB]

   ...that sale as the foundation for value, the profit and expenses incurred after importation are deducted from that price to infer the value at the time of importation. The profit and expenses may be calculated based on what is reasonable, and that judgment is informed by comparison with market values rather than necessarily accepting the importers’ actual costs and profits. [6.6] If the deductive value does not produce a satisfactory result, then a computed value may be used.8 T...

9. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Mr U [2024] NZLCDT 4 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...personally attacked by opposing counsel and that there was a campaign against him by means of complaints to the Law Society. He stated he found every document filed by opposing counsel “to be deeply offensive” and that he found “most of the Judgments of this Court, to date, to be deeply offensive”. [21] He went on to refer to psychological and financial abuse being inflicted upon him as a result of his colleagues’ conduct. Mr U advised the Court that Ms H and Mr J had...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 111 Scaife v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 255 KB]

    ...earlier proposed and about which we noted concern that this would create “significant administrative uncertainty”. [72] We appreciate that the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of standards and other rules is a matter of degree and judgment. However, as opposed to draft r 46.5.WW, Mr Scaife’s drafting would lead to significantly greater and unwarranted administrative complexity. [73] A single global ‘people’ cap exceedance of which would trigger non- complyin...