Search Results

1. ENVC Hearing 27Jul15 DM suppl evidence Dennis Scott [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...the Matietie Reserve have been removed from the amended marina proposal. 26. In my opinion, the fundamental adverse landscape and spatial effect of the marina is generated from its location and form. It is not about scale. 27. Finally, in response to Mr. Pryor’s supplementary evidence I challenge the constant use of the existing modified characteristics of Matiatia, including the “highly visible wharves ferry terminal and car-parking” as reasoning to justify the marina lo...

2. ENVC Hearing 27Jul15 WML suppl rebuttal David Mitchell [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...calculations are unsupported by evidence and result in extremely high and totally unrealistic volumes. More Frequent Ferry Services 9. I outlined my opinions on more frequent ferry services in my evidence in chief at paragraphs 139 – 141, in response to submissions. My opinion at that time was based on the fact that as additional sailings occur, ferry capacity increases significantly (ie 3 twice the number of ferries, twice the capacity (assuming the same...

3. ENVC Hearing 27Jul15 AC supplementary evidence Stephen Brown [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...have had regard to changes to the pier lengths, breakwaters and other marina components, which reflect the Court’s acute sensitivity to the potential impacts of the proposal on its Matiatia Bay setting. Indeed, it is my opinion that the various responses to the issues raised by the Court have contributed to a heightened sensitivity in relation to all aspects of the marina proposal, including its impacts on the bay next to Matietei Reserve. This is clearly reflected, for example,...

4. Taueki v Procter – Horowhenua (11) Lake (2013) 296 Aotea MB 91 (296 AOT 91) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...trustees and the beneficiaries do not appear to have made much progress with such discussions, to say nothing of the interminable delays that were experienced under a previous regime of trustees concerning a draft trust order. [10] In summary, my response to the application for directions and the points of clarification that Ms Taueki is seeking is as follows: (a) reference to the Reserves and other Lands Disposal Act 1956 in the trust order can be attended to in due course. The tr...

5. Wano v Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Incorporated (2013) 22 Takitimu MB 276 (22 TKT 276) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...First Respondent is adhering to its own constitutional documents and the processes contained therein. The First Respondent denies the allegations and like the Second Respondent questions the jurisdiction of the Court to even consider and provide a response to the Applicant’s claims. [2] Mr Wano also raised issues of conflict of interest alleging that counsel for the First Respondent may be in a conflict. To the extent that it is relevant to this Court, and I cannot see at this p...

6. Fielding v REAA & McIntyre [2012] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...Stitchting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141. According to the judgment, a Court considering an appeal from a lower Court is not obliged to defer to the reasons of the decision 3 appealed from. Rather, the appellate Court has the responsibility of arriving at its own assessment of the merits of the case [paragraph [16]: “[16] Those exercising general rights of appeal are entitled to judgment in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court, even where th...

7. Paul v Trustees of Ruawahia 2B – Ruawahia 2B (2013) 79 Waiariki MB 108 (79 WAR 108) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...injunction and the Trust review proceedings himself, counsel were instructed and appeared when those matters came to hearing. Given the serious nature of the allegations the respondent trustees also instructed counsel and filed substantial evidence in response by way of affidavits. Mr Paul did not respond to that evidence and it went largely unchallenged. Counsel for Mr Paul submitted that his client would like to see a merciful hand (tohu aroha) in relation to costs. The Court is n...

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Clews [2014] NZLCDT 49 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...will in itself be punishment. Issue 4 - is suspension necessary? [16] Mr McCoubrey for the Standards Committee submitted that this level of misconduct could not properly incur any penalty less than suspension. For Mr Clews while Mr Gorringe responsibly recognised that suspension was a predictable outcome, he urged the Tribunal to the view that the public interest did not require it in the case of this particular practitioner. Mr Gorringe pointed us to the strong mitigatory facto...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 45 Industrial Equipment Distributors Lifting Centre Ltd v Spark NZ Ltd [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...whom the applicant says it may raise a claim in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) in respect of alleged breaches of the employment agreements of those three individuals, and for penalties in respect of such breaches. A notice of response has been filed on their behalf which denies the basis for any action against them, and states that they intend to defend any allegations for breach of contract in the Authority, if brought. Those parties have not, however, filed a...

10. Geary v ACC (Application by Plaintiff for Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 47 KB]

    ...(Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 31 PA – plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – finding that plaintiff had pursued tactics to ensure proceedings as difficult and protracted as he could make them – rejection of reasonable and responsible settlement offer – successful defendant incurred fees of $25,268.63 plus disbursements of $502.23 but indemnity costs not sought – defendant sought $13,130 and disbursements of $502.23. $13,632.23 (18 September 2013) [1...