Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 262 Director-General of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 7.6 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 262 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

2. [2012] NZEmpC 20 White & Others v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...Szilagyi’s 5 case and in paras [47]-[53] in this case. In addition, he correctly warned against focusing on the “true intentions” or “true expectations” of the parties because of the risk of concentrating too much on what were the private intentions of the parties. He added: What the parties privately intended or expected (either before or after the contract was agreed) may be evidence of what, objectively discerned, was actually agreed between the parties: see L...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 144 Nash v NZ Trade & Enterprise and Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...the historical narrative in order to better appreciate the context in which the application for an extension of time now arises. [7] In about 2007, the government made funding available through NZTE for a joint initiative between public and private sector organisations aimed at helping businesses develop their capabilities through the provision of high-quality, assessable and appropriate services. WRCC was the relevant private sector member of the joint initiative. The joint in...

4. LCRO 74/2017 SD v TM (31 January 2019) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator and seek and receive evidence. These powers extend to “any review” … … the power of review is much broader t...

5. LCRO 107/2023 NC v PJ (30 November 2023) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...under s 138(1)(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) to take no further action in relation to his complaint dated 13 April 2023 about the professional conduct of the respondent, Mr PJ. Background [2] The applicant was pursuing a private prosecution in the District Court at [City A]. The applicant, who is not a lawyer, was representing himself. The respondent, a barrister sole, was representing the defendant. [3] The defendant had applied for the prosecution to be di...

6. Koria & Anor v Johnson & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...evidence about what he did, but that he could not give expert evidence because, as a party, he would be deeply conflicted and unable to be objective. Mr Woodger submitted that he has expertise from his long experience as a Council inspector and private certifier. I accept that Mr Woodger is able to give evidence about technical matters but not opinion evidence as an independent expert. WHAT ARE THE DEFECTS THAT HAVE RESULTED IN DAMAGE? [7] The main defects resulting in m...

7. Form 14 Waitangi Tribunal Application [pdf, 459 KB]

   ...application. • My obligations to notify Legal Aid of any change to their address, or any increase in their income or assets (disposable capital). • The fact that they have waived legal professional privilege for the purpose of an audit or an investigation by the performance review committee or any other investigation of me under the Legal Services Act 2011 and the effects and implications of that waiver. • The potential cost of services for the proceedings for which aid is soug...

8. [2021] NZEnvC 133 Woolworths New Zealand Limited [pdf, 1 MB]

   WOOLWORTHS NZ LTD v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision [2021] NZEnvC 133 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND an application under s87G of the RMA BETWEEN WOOLWORTHS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (ENV-2020-CHC-001) Applicant AND CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Consent Authority Court: Environment Judge P A Steven Alternate Environment Judge L J Newhook Environment Commissione

9. [2012] NZEmpC 172 Gregory v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 301 KB]

   JIMMY GREGORY V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 172 [5 October 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 172 ARC 98/09 IN THE MATTER OF de novo challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN JIMMY GREGORY Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant Hearing: 15-19 and 22-25 November 2010; 8 April 2011; 5-7, 9 and 12-13 December 2011 (

10. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

    ...Ranui property was consistent with the goals of the Trust but said it would have been his practice to have canvassed that. (i) Mr Johnson had been unable to recall whether he had canvassed with the Trustees why they were buying a property privately from Mr Ed Johnston rather than buying on the open market. (j) Mr Johnson did not recall if he asked or even considered whether the Trustees had been influenced in any way by the relationship they had with Mr Ed Johnston. [2...