Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 174 Barbican Securities Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...Protection Society Inc, “many of the policies in the Regional Policy Statement are concerned with achieving positive outcomes rather than with controlling or restricting negative outcomes. Given that most positive outcomes will be achieved by private actors, rather than by the Council, it is only natural that these policies use verbs such as “enable”, “encourage” or “promote” rather than a verb such as “require”.33 As such, Councils will, in some instances, need t...

2. [2021] NZEnvC 036 Wood & Henton v Auckland Council [pdf, 9.8 MB]

   ...less than five working days before the anticipated commencement of any works authorised by these consents; iii. is attended by: 1. Council officers, including: a. Council's nominated Compliance Monitoring Officer; b. In the case of trees on private land - the Resource Consents Specialist Advisor - Arborist; c. In the case of trees in streets and Council Reserves - the Community Facilities Urban Forest Specialist Advisor for the local board area. d. a suitably qualified arch...

3. Atkins & Ors as Trustees of the Bruce Family Trust v North Shore City Council [pdf, 284 KB]

   claim-01505.doc Claim No: 1505 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim And Peter Bruce Frederick Atkins, Peter Bruce Frederick Atkins and John Richard Muller as trustees of The Bruce Family Trust Claimants And North Shore City Council First respondent And Grant Williams Second respondent And Jason Williams Third respondent And Grant Williams and Jason Williams and Desmond Sarjant Williams as trustee

4. Regulatory Impact Statement review of the Judicature Act and consolidation of courts legislation [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...would choose the District Court are more likely to require judge time, based on current  behaviour of District Court litigants with higher value claims.  7. The policy options are not likely to:   impose additional costs on businesses, or   impair private property  rights, market competition, or  the  incentives on businesses  to  innovate and invest.  2  8. The  policy  options  are  not  likely  to  override  fundamenta...

5. Peni v Pahi — Tiroa E Block and Te Hape B Block (2010) 1 Waikato Maniapoto MB 25 (1 WMN 25) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...position as trustee. [43] The applicant therefore seeks an order directing Mr Maag to pay the trust $2,000.00 and that the Court consider the removal of Mr Maag as a trustee. [44] The applicant also contended that the other trustees did not seek to investigate or take any advice on the matter and appear to have misunderstood Mr Maag’s position in receiving the money. In the applicant’s view this highlights the problem of overlapping governance with management – the majority o...

6. [2022] NZACC 145 – Stojicevic v ACC (26 July 2022) [pdf, 434 KB]

   ...there is “a lot of medical evidence” and this case is something of a medical “who done it”. He acknowledged the three events of accidents on 28 June 2018, 13 July 2018 and 29 January 2019. He also acknowledges a “huge” variety of investigation which first was directed at the lumbar spine and then hip and finally the coccyx. [101] He says that none of these had certainty. He submits that the GP’s note of 3 September 2018 is “crucial” in that the appellant repor...

7. LCRO 71/2022 OM v NT (22 July 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2024] NZLCRO 093 Ref: LCRO 71/2022 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN OM Applicant AND NT Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed DECISION Introduction [1] The applica

8. LCRO 125/2023 TR v HJ (28 November 2023) [pdf, 265 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2023] NZLCRO 144 Ref: LCRO 125/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN TR Applicant AND HJ Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] The applicant h

9. LCRO 55/2024 EFH and KFH v SP and NR (15 October 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2024] NZLCRO 132 Ref: LCRO 55/2024 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN EFH and KFH Applicants AND SP and NR Respondents The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introd

10. 2023-10-12-Proposed-Conditions-12-October-2023.pdf [pdf, 2.6 MB]

    Ōtaki to north of Levin Highway Project DRAFT CONDITIONS: REBUTTAL VERSION (TRACKED) 1 DRAFT CONDITIONS [REBUTTAL VERSION: TRACKED] Drafting notes Base version: The base document used to set out amendments to the draft conditions is the clean ‘Mediation Version’ dated 4 September 2023. Rebuttal version: The rebuttal version includes further amendments to the conditions that are made in response to the evidence filed by section 274 parties and the Councils, as detailed