Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 284 Director-General of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 16 MB]

   Aupōuri Aquifer: Director-General of Conservation v Northland Regional Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 284 IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against a decision granting resource consent application for taking groundwater from various aquifer sub- units of the Aupōuri Aquifer, Northland BETWEEN DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION (ENV-2021-AK

2. [2017] NZEmpC 128 ALA v ITE [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...is broad and intended to be capable of application to a wide range of circumstances, without any stated limitations. Indeed, the Act reflects Parliament’s recognition of the wide variety of employment relationship participants, for example, private and public companies, local authorities, charities, religious organisations or any other employer or employee whether in the private or public sector. [56] That said, the Court has the ability to determine in a particular case whethe...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 403) v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 1 [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...[39] We have difficulty understanding the relevance of this submission, but we reject any suggestion that we should draw an adverse inference when assessing Ms A’s evidence, from the timing of her statement. Her statement to the Authority’s investigator is dated 22 February 2015. It was within a very short period of her resignation, and Mr W’s complaint. Ms A was consistent in her complaint to Mr W, her statement to the investigator, and her evidence at the hearing. Compari...

4. Rec-Recap-2024-Q1-FINAL.pdf [pdf, 873 KB]

   ...look after navigation safety in the region and it has a Navigation Safety Bylaw for regulating boating activity on the water, but it gives no jurisdiction on the land. The stakeholders in this area with an interest in this location include the private landowner/s and Waikato-Tainui (Iwi). VIII. For there to be appropriate signage and PRE placed at Crayfish Point the stakeholders will need to consult and discuss the placement and the cost. IX. On 22 February 2024, I attended a hu...

5. Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporation (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...statement of reply ACC says that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear that part of the claim which 2 relates to Richmond because the Privacy Commissioner did not give notice to ACC under s 73 of the Act of her intention to make an investigation into the Richmond complaint. The Tribunal is asked to strike out paragraphs 10 to 13 of the statement of claim, being those paragraphs which relate to the Richmond complaint. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the Nayland...

6. Briggs v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 413), Eggers & Knott [2017] NZREADT 81 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...vendor agreed to sell. The listing appraisal put the price at $700,000 and in the view of the agents the likely range for sale was $680,000 to $750,000. [6] Neither agent was involved in the on-sale process. Mr Gibbons said that he told the investigator that after signing the agreement with Mr Briggs he had spent funds on completing the property, tidying up and making improvements to the property, providing a land survey for some potential development and increasing the rent rol...

7. UH v EN [2022] NZDT 155 (13 October 2022) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the pr...

8. WD v HT [2023] NZDT 674 (1 November 2023) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the pr...

9. KI v CT [2023] NZDT 125 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the pr...

10. UM v QO [2022] NZDT 252 (12 December 2022) [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the pr...