Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 104 Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand v New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...Plaintiff AND NEW ZEALAND NURSES ORGANISATION INCORPORATED Defendant Hearing: 24 November 2023 (Heard at Wellington) Appearances: S Hornsby-Geluk, counsel for plaintiff P Cranney and K Gawe, counsel for defendant Judgment: 13 June 2024 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH (Application to strike out proceedings) (Application for joinder) [1] On 9 May 2023, the defendant gave notice to the plaintiff of a strike to take place at Gisborne...

2. Sansom v Department of Internal Affairs [2016] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...possible occurrence) of the loss. It is not necessary for the cause to be the sole cause, main cause, direct cause, indirect cause or “but for” cause. No form of words will ultimately provide an automatic answer to what is essentially a broad judgment. [44] The basic flaw in Ms Sansom’s case is that the harm about which she complains and for which she seeks a remedy flows from events which occurred in late 2010 and the first half of 2011 when she was employed by the Department, no...

3. ENV-2016-AKL-000xxx Silvertown Group Limited (previously East Coast Farms Limited) v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. 10. The Courts have taken account of the “deliberate openness” of the language used in the Act and have said that Part 2 allows for an “overall broad judgement” to be made having regard to various competing considerations which might arise in any given set of circumstances. 11. Section 6 of the Act sets out matters of national importance which may or may not be relevant to a particular di...

4. LCRO 168/2017 AH v OS and VI (21 December 2018) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...view 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. [49] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:3 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

5. LCRO 5/2020 AJ v BN (30 September 2020) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...view 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. [38] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:7 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

6. WISE - EiC - D MacTavish - Irrigation-Geohydrology (filed 9 Feb 2021) [pdf, 742 KB]

   ...is adhered to and NPSFM priorities are achieved, flow parameters will need to be supported by monitoring and review provisions that can be applied when needed without legal impediment. 71. Thus, with the new NPSFM, it’s clearly not just a judgement call between instream and abstractive demands – it is a broader question of what are the instream needs to maintain ecosystem function, ecosystem services and biodiversity given that ultimately both our economy and wellbeing depend...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 091 Otago Regional Council [pdf, 528 KB]

   ...Fish and Game Management Plan 2015-2025 was had regard to. 8 “Take into account” requires that the decision-maker must address the matter and record it has been addressed in the decision; but the weight of the matter is for the decision-makers’ judgment in light of the evidence. Unison Networks Ltd v Hastings District Council [2011] NZRMA 394 (HC) at [70]. 9 The following iwi management plans are relevant to Chapter 7 – Kāi Tahu ki Otago Natural Resources Management Plan 2005;...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 91 Otago Regional Council - Chapter 7 (Landfills) [pdf, 600 KB]

   ...Fish and Game Management Plan 2015-2025 was had regard to. 8 “Take into account” requires that the decision-maker must address the matter and record it has been addressed in the decision; but the weight of the matter is for the decision-makers’ judgment in light of the evidence. Unison Networks Ltd v Hastings District Council [2011] NZRMA 394 (HC) at [70]. 9 The following iwi management plans are relevant to Chapter 7 – Kāi Tahu ki Otago Natural Resources Management Plan 2005;...

9. LCRO 7/2024 SO v EJ and QJ (30 July 2025) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...be disciplined within the provisions related to regulated services. We agree,… 47 Refer [57] above 48 Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Park [2023] NZLCDT 51. 49 Ms Paul was counsel for Mr Park. 50 The reference to Burcher is the High Court judgment in Burcher v Auckland Standards Committee 5 [2020] NZHC 43. 18 [99] I consider that the ‘artificiality’ the Tribunal refers to, applies to Mr SO’s conduct. It could only be a limited range of the conduct of a lawyer appointe...

10. Tito - Mangakahia 2B2 - No 2A1A [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 86 (2011 APPEAL 86) [pdf, 161 KB]

    ...THE MATTER OF Mangakahia 2B2 - No 2A1A BETWEEN KEVIN JOHN TITO Appellant Hearing: 18 August 2010 (Heard at Whangarei) Court: Chief Judge W W Isaac (Presiding) Judge S Te A Milroy Judge S R Clark Judge C T Coxhead Judgment: 23 February 2011 RESERVED DECISION OF THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT Introduction [1] This is an appeal by Kevin Tito against the following decisions of the Māori Land Court: i) A decision made on 27 November 2009 to appoint t...