Search Results

1. Starik v Auckland Council [2016] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 491 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2014-100-000036 [2016] NZWHT AUCKLAND 5 BETWEEN JANET WILSON STARIK AND GEORGE ANDREW DEEB AS TRUSTEES OF THE HERBERT STARIK FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND PENINSULA HOMES LIMITED Second Respondent AND KEVIN BRYAN PERRY Third Respondent AND SCOTT DAVID PERRY Fourth Respondent AND GARY MURTAGH Fifth Respondent AND JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Sixth Respondent Hearing: 2–5, 12

2. Recommendations Recap Issue 15 [pdf, 453 KB]

   Recommendations Recap A summary of coronial recommendations and comments made between 1 January and 31 March 2018 Focus Recreational boating deaths Office of the Chief Coroner | 2018 (1) i Coroners’ recommendations and comments Coroners perform essential functions within our society. They inquire into a range of unexpected deaths to establish the identity of the person who has died and the cause and circumstances of their death. W

3. 2022-03-18 ORC - Opening Submissions [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...accepted by the Courts that not all rules can be expressed in measurable units and that a condition on a permitted activity rule is not as a matter of law automatically invalid simply because it calls for an evaluation or requires an exercise of judgment. However, any condition on a permitted activity rule that requires certification needs to be capable of objective analysis.61 92 In the case of Ms Hunter’s proposed rule, it appears that she is suggesting that the ESCP simply...

4. NZCVS Methodology Report Cycle 3 (2020) [pdf, 4.9 MB]

   Methodology Report Cycle 3 (2019/20) ISSN 2744-5798 Published in June 2021 By The Ministry of Justice Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088, Wellington, New Zealand T: +64 4 918 8800 F: +64 4 918 8820 E: NZCVS@justice.govt.nz W: www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/research-data/nzcvs Suggested citation Ministry of Justice. 2021. New Zeala

5. Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 of the New Zealand Law Society [pdf, 515 KB]

   HART V AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC AK CIV- 2012-404-5076 THIS JUDGMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE SUPPRESSION ORDERS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH [246] IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2012-404-5076 CIV-2012-404-5528 BETWEEN BARRY JOHN HART Appellant AND AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Respondent Hearing: 10 & 11 December 2012 Court: Winkelmann J Lang J Counsel: A Trenw

6. [2018] NZEnvC 227 Taranaki Energy Watch Incorporated v South Taranaki District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI T AIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 227 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act TARANAKI ENERGY WATCH INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-WLG-080) Appellant SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J E Borthwick Environment Commissioner J A Hodges Environment Commissioner J T Baines Hearing: at New Plymouth

7. Restorative Justice Victim Satisfaction Survey Report 2018 [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   Ministry of Justice • 2018 Restorative Justice Victim Satisfaction Survey Report • Page 1 Ministry of Justice - Restorative Justice Survey Victim Satisfaction Survey 2018 Report Prepared by: Gravitas Research and Strategy Ltd For: Ministry of Justice September 2018 Ministry of Justice • 2018 Restorative Justice Victim Satisfaction Survey Report • Page 2 Contents 1. Executive summary 3 2. Introduction

8. [2023] NZEnvC 225 The Olive Leaf Centre Trust v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 581 KB]

   THE OLIVE LEAF CENTRE TRUST v QLDC – DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 225 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN THE OLIVE LEAF CENTRE TRUST (ENV-2021-CHC-01) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge P A Steven Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Hearing: at Queenstown on 8, 9,

9. LCRO 106/2024 CQ v DN and RN (30 September 2025) [pdf, 364 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. [56] The High Court has also described a review in the following way:11 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a...

10. Burke Family Trust v Wellington City Council [pdf, 265 KB]

    ...Act where general damages in favour of a Trust were respectively disallowed and allowed. I was also referred to La Grouw v Cairns (CIV 2002-404-156; O'Regan J; Auckland High Court; 16/2/04). That was an appeal against a District Court judgment where a claim had been made by a trustee as purchaser of a dwellinghouse against the vendor for alleged misrepresentation concerning leaks caused to the property. The High Court dismissed the appeal from the District Court on the gro...