Search Results

1. ENV-2018-AKL-000150 Brookby Quarries Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 8.3 MB]

   NOTICE OF APPEAL 26 JULY 2018 Counsel instructed: Solicitors acting: Russell Bartlett QC / Bal Matheson D J Minhinnick / L J Eaton C/- Richmond Chambers P +64 9 367 8000 33 Shortland Street F +64 9 367 8163 PO Box 1008 PO Box 8 Auckland 1140 DX CX10085 Auckland BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV–2018 –AKL - AT AUCKLAND I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO I TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE UNDER the Local Government Act (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (&

2. Youth Court - Signed, sealed – (but not yet fully) delivered [pdf, 817 KB]

   1 “Signed, Sealed – (but not yet fully) Delivered” An analysis of the “revolutionary” 1989 legislative blueprint to address youth offending in New Zealand, particularly by young Māori, and a discussion as to the extent to which it has been fully realised. Paper to be delivered at the “Healing Courts, Healing Plans, Healing People: International Indigenous Therapeutic Jurisprudence Conference” by His Honour Judge Andrew Becroft1

3. Paora - Te Tii Waitangi A (Waitangi Marae) (2015) 94 Taitokerau MB 134 (94 TTK 134) [pdf, 306 KB]

   94 Taitokerau MB 134 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20120009644 UNDER Regulation 21, Māori Reservations Regulations 1994 IN THE MATTER OF Te Tii Waitangi A (Waitangi Marae) BETWEEN WAIRETI PAORA Applicant A20120011550 UNDER Sections 67, 239 and 338(7), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Tii Waitangi A BETWEEN MEREHORA TAURUA Applicant Hearing: 24 Janua

4. [2019] NZSSAA 05 (31 January 2019) [pdf, 529 KB]

   [2019] NZSSAA 05 Reference No. SSA 047/17 & 071/17 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY Mr G Pearson - Chairperson Mr K Williams - Member Mr C Joe - Member Hearings on 4 December 2017, and 9 November 2018. Appearances Mr Ord, Barrister and Solicitor, Nelson for the appellant Mr Stain

5. ENV-2018-AKL-000149 Fulton Hogan Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 7.9 MB]

   NOTICE OF APPEAL 26 JULY 2018 Counsel instructed: Bal Matheson Richmond Chambers PO Box 1008 Auckland 1140 Solicitor acting: D J Minhinnick I L J Eaton P +64 9 367 8000 F +64 9 367 8163 PO Box 8 DX CX10085 Auckland BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV–2018–AKL - AT AUCKLAND I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO I TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE UNDER the Local Government Act (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 ("LGATPA ") and

6. Auckland City Council as Assignee v Irwin [pdf, 196 KB]

   Claim No: 1092 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between Auckland City Council (as assignee) Claimant And David Irwin First respondent And Paterson Cullen Irwin Limited Second respondent And Stuart Brentnall Third respondent And S J Brentnall Limited Fourth respondent And Carl Ruffels Fifth respondent And Auckland City Council Sixth respondent Par

7. Cameron & Ors as Trustees of the Normac Trust v Stevenson [2010] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 186 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-101-000012 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 39 BETWEEN DAVID LINDSAY CAMERON, BRENDA MURIEL CAMERON and GEOFFREY HEWIT MYLES as Trustees of the NORMAC TRUST Claimants AND DAVID LAWRENCE STEVENSON First Respondent AND CHRISTOPHER JOHN CHOTE Second Respondent AND BMW PLUMBING LIMITED Third Respondent AND CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND BRIAN MUSSON (Removed) Fifth Respond

8. Clearwater Trust v Flora Creative Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...The measure of damages from Mr Paul Clarke’s negligence is thus the increased costs between 2005 and 2011 of remediating the west wall of the house. The issue of the quantification of that loss is dealt with separately at the end of this judgment. ISSUE D – Whether Landmark BOP Limited owed a duty of care to the claimants to identify defects and recommend appropriate remedial works in 2007 and, if so, to what extent? [55] Landmark BOP was the company that undertook the...

9. LCRO 45 and 46/2014 PO v RQ and FE [pdf, 273 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. [32] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:9 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

10. LCRO 170/2020 KLM Limited v ND (30 March 2021) [pdf, 276 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. 5 Mr ND, email to LCRO (4 September 2020); LCRO (case manager), letter to [KLM] (5 January 2021). 6 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 6 [29] More recently, the High Court...