Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 068 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v West Coast Regional Council [pdf, 827 KB]

   ROYAL FOREST & BIRD v WCRC & BDC & STEVENSON MINING – DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 68 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (ENV-2017-CHC-90) Appellant AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondents AND STEVENSON MINI

2. Final-Technical-Assessment-H-Water-Quality-v2.pdf [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...rivers and the overall level of effects of the Ō2NL Project on aquatic ecology. 23. The EcIA approach provides a structured, consistent and transparent method of assessing effects. However, it does not replace the need for sound ecological judgement. In simple terms, the EcIA uses a matrix to assess the overall level of effects of an activity based on the ecological values of the site affected and the magnitude of effect. Key steps in the EcIA process are: (a) Assess the eco...

3. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 298 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-100-000091 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 33 BETWEEN JOSEPH CHEE and MARGARET CHEE Claimants AND STAREAST INVESTMENT LIMITED First Respondent AND MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND PATRICK HUNG Third Respondent AND T.Q. CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND BRIAN CHARLES TAYLOR Fifth Respondent AND SPOUTING AND STEEL ROOFING WORLD LIMITED Sixth Respondent AND RAYMOND PHILLIP BROCKL

4. [2018] NZEnvC 079 Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust v Hastings District Council [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND Court: Environment Judge C J Thompson Alternate Environment Judge C L Fox Environment Commissioner W R Howie ENV-201S-WLG-OS4 Decision No [2018] NZEnvC 7 9 of an appeal under clause 14( 1) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 MAUNGAHARURU-TANGITO TRUST Appellant HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: at Hastings and Napier 6 - 8 March and 26 - 27 April

5. [2018] NZEnvC 046 Friends of Nelson Haven Tasman Bay Inc v Tasman District Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 0 4- b of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an inquiry under clauses 14(1) and 15(3) of Schedule 1 to the Act FRIENDS OF NELSON HAVEN AND TASMAN BAY INCORPORATED (ENV-2017 -WLG-00001 0) Appellant TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent WAINUI SPAT CATCHING GROUP Applicant JILL/AN RUTH FOXWELL FRIENDS OF GOLDEN BAY SOCIETY (I NCORPORA

6. Environment Court Annual Review 2016 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   2016 Annual Review Calendar Year 2016 By Members of the Court Environment Court of New Zealand Annual Review 2016 2 PUBLISHED AUGUST 2017 CONCERNING CALENDAR YEAR 2016 In this review Calendar year 2016: an overview by Principal Environment Judge ............................................ 4 Profile of the Court ............................................................................................................................ 5 The Court’

7. Environment Court Annual Review 2016 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   2016 Annual Review Calendar Year 2016 By Members of the Court Environment Court of New Zealand Annual Review 2016 2 PUBLISHED AUGUST 2017 CONCERNING CALENDAR YEAR 2016 In this review Calendar year 2016: an overview by Principal Environment Judge ............................................ 4 Profile of the Court ............................................................................................................................ 5 The Court’

8. LCRO 239/2020 DP v FJ obo RK (25 June 2021) [pdf, 356 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. 18 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 12 [59] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 A review by the LCRO is neither a...

9. [2017] NZEnvC 204 City Rail Link Limited Successor to Auckland Transport v Auckland Council [pdf, 5.7 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Court: Hearing: Appearances: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 2cft- of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 198E of the Act CITY RAIL LINK LIMITED ('CRLL') (SUCCESSOR TO AUCKLAND TRANSPORT) KIWIRAIL HOLDINGS LIMITED (ENV-2017-AKL- 000059) Requiring Authorities AUCKLAND COUNCIL Territorial Unitary Authority Principal Environment Judge Newhook Environment Commissioner RM Dunlo

10. [2023] NZREADT 11 - CAC 2103 v Lieven (15 May 2023) [pdf, 263 KB]

    ...similar challenge was made in [Orlov v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal7], where the Court, noting that s 239 was overlooked in Dorbu, held: “[80] We consider subs (1) [of s 239] governs s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006. The judgments may be accepted by the Disciplinary Tribunal as evidence. It then simply becomes a question of weight to be given to the conclusions contained therein. This assessment will inevitably be case specific and turn very much on the p...