Search Results

1. Alves v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims Process) [2023 NZACC 197] [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...appeal has been accepted and would encourage you to raise your current needs with your GP so they can refer these to us for funding or cover consideration. 5 [16] On 17 January 2023, Mr Alves applied for a review of the Corporation’s response. [17] On 24 May 2023, the Reviewer dismissed the review, on the basis that the Corporation’s email of 16 January 2023 was not a decision capable of review. The Reviewer found that the email was not a decision by the Corporation to...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 250 Philip John Woolley v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 467 KB]

   ...consent must have been complied with, in particular any requirement for water flow meter installation. 2. Pursuant to section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Marlborough District Council’s schedule of fees, the consent holder will be responsible for all actual and reasonable costs associated with the monitoring of this resource consent. 3. Data shall be provided to Council in a format and to a standard approved by the Compliance Manager, Marlborough District Council. A...

3. Gemmell v Gemmell - Ngatarawa 2A3B1B2 (2023) 105 Tākitimu MB 199 (105 TKT 199) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...application. She indicated that she had not received my earlier directions because her contact details had changed. She sought leave to file a submission late. Counsel for the Trustees opposed this leave. In the end, Belinda Wharehinga did not file a response within the time requested, so I declined her request to file a submission late. [15] By minute dated 5 September 2023 I confirmed that I would determine the application for costs on the papers.8 5 96 Tākitimu MB 120-134...

4. HC & KP v QT [2023] NZDT 413 (10 July 2023) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...Applicants are to ensure that [Builder] gives QT 24 hours notice in writing placed in her letterbox of any incursions onto her property required in the building of the boundary fence. D. The boundary fence is to be built on the boundary. It is the responsibility of the Applicants to ensure that this is carried out correctly. E. In accordance with section 24(1)(k) of the Fencing Act 1978, and subject to Order C above, I order that [Builder] is entitled to access the property of QT...

5. [2025] NZREADT 18 - Dong v REA (09 June 2025) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Applicant another letter by email. This letter advised the Applicant of the Registrar’s intention to cancel her licence because she had not completed her required CPD. The Applicant was given ten working days (by 12 March 2025) to provide a written response as to why her licence should not be cancelled. This letter was also sent to the Applicant by post. [9] On 21 March 2025, the Registrar sent the Applicant another letter by email, advising her that her licence would be cancel...

6. Appendix-2-Nelson-Courthouse-Technical-advisory-on-seismic-risk-and-occupancy-assessment-Holmes-February-2025.pdf [pdf, 467 KB]

   ...this case there has been sufficient assessment/calculations that have been undertaken in the ISA to give enough certainty on the critical structural issues identified to enable the Ministry to review the current known risk and prepare an appropriate response. The approach taken in this assessment is consistent with the risk information and key messages contained in MBIE’s Seismic Risk Guidance for Buildings, July 2022. The occupancy risk evaluation is based on the BRANZ document –...

7. [2025] NZLVT 17 – Topping v Tasman District Council (28 April 2025) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...supplied to Mr Topping on 22 November. As no returned mail was received by QV we consider it highly likely that a notice was delivered to the PO Box number supplied. The revaluation was publicly notified, and we consider it the owners/ratepayers responsibility to maintain their own mailbox. Up until your email this morning the council/QV had not been served a copy of the objection in accordance with 36(b) of the Rating Valuation Act 1998. We request that for the reasons outline...

8. NE v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims Process) [2025] NZACC 021 (4 February 2025) [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...appellant was not in attendance. Fairway contacted the appellant, who then attended. The 5 appellant advised that she was not sure what the hearing was about. The Reviewer then invited the appellant to file, by 3 November 2022, a written response to the Corporation’s submissions, providing full reasons for her opposition to the jurisdictional challenge. [11] On 3 November 2022, the appellant provided the following response: 1. My response 2. On the following applica...

9. [2024] NZIACDT 24 – FM v Yang (23 October 2024) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...for a migrant exploitation protection visa. 1 FM v Yang [2024] NZIACDT 23. 3 Decision of the Tribunal [8] It was found by the Tribunal that Mr Yang: 1. Failed to be professional and diligent by delegating to the unlicensed agent his responsibility to communicate with the complainant, in breach of cl 1. 2. Failed to obtain instructions personally and directly from the complainant, in breach of cl 2(e) of the Code. 3. Failed to provide and explain to the complainant the sum...

10. Christchurch Masjidain Attack Inquiry

    If the information you're looking for isn't on this page, or if you have any other questions, please contact Coronial Services by emailing coronial.response@justice.govt.nz or phoning 0800 88 88 20. Media representatives should email queries to media@justice.govt.nz. Further information for media is available under the media tab. On these pages, you'll find information about the 15 March 2019 Christchurch Masjidain Attack Coronial Inquiry, and how the coronial process works....

    Located in:

    1. Coroners Court