Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 030 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 7.4 MB]

   ...seeks the court's comment on the presently unresolved interpretation issue it raises. [11] The Council also reports on its progress in its analysis of AUP overlays (a matter we return to later in this decision). Logan Terrace parties' response [12] The Logan Terrace parties oppose the Council's above proposed changes of wording. They submit that the Council's proposed replacement of an 'either or' construct _'" to a cumulative 'and&#039...

2. LCRO 212/2016 LM v HR (22 September 2017) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...decisions. [24] The Committee then addressed the second issue raised by Mr LM:14 … whether any of the statements made in that confidential communication are such that they “cross the line of impropriety” to such an extent that a disciplinary response is warranted. [25] After considering the first statement complained about by Mr LM, the Committee said:15 In the circumstances of the exchange the SC does not believe that the Respondent “crossed the line of impropriety” in h...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 45 Senate Investment Trust Through Crown Lease Trustees Ltdv Cooper [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...of a longer email train between them relating to the various operational aspects of setting up an employment relationship – the provision of IRD numbers, bank account details and other such information. The fact that Mr Cooper, in his response to Mr Sowry that day, did not say anything about the agreement not being attached indicates to me that it was more likely than not that it was attached to that email. However, no further reference was made to the agreement by eithe...

4. [2021] NZACC 62 - Atley v ACC (20 April 2021) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...February 2019 and the deadline for the application of 17 March 2019. Mr Atley accepted that he knew of the process for lodging a review application and that there was a deadline for doing so. He said that he was, however, hoping for a favourable response from the Corporation, even beyond the deadline, and continued to wait until he eventually lodged the application on 28 May 2019. The Court does not accept this response as a justifiable reason for the delay, particularly consider...

5. Matchitt v Whangara B20 Incorporation - Whangara B20 (2006) 168 Gisborne MB 126 (168 GIS 126) [pdf, 486 KB]

   ...compared to the evidence that suggests that he merely understood the Matchitts were staying in the homestead until they could settle on Whangara B18. Interestingly, in the minutes of the committee dated 5 February 2002, Mr Joseph Paenga took full responsibility for the Matchitt occupation of the homestead and he assured the COITJ1Yrtttee t.~at they "vQuld only be in the house until t..he end of FebDlary. Another example comes from the minutes dated 23 April 2002, where Dr Te Momo an...

6. E v D [2019] NZIACDT 2 (30 January 2019) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...not buy [the] Lodge. We did not know that a seasonal business would not be looked on favourably by Immigration … This whole terrible turn of events has been caused in a large part by the unprofessional advice we were given. [33] No doubt in response to Ms G’s criticism, Mr D sent an internal email to Ms T on 15 September 2014 setting out his understanding of the events. Following the failed sale of the Wanaka motel, he did not hear from them until they bought the lodge. At no...

7. Stone v CAC 412 & Lim [2019] NZREADT 20 (22 May 2019) [pdf, 589 KB]

   ...case. [50] It is also apparent from the Nottingham decision that the appropriate course is for a separately constituted Tribunal to consider the question of whether charges ought to be laid and the form that they should take. It would also be the responsibility of that Tribunal to consider whether the statements which Ms. Lim made in the trespass notice ought to be included in the charge to be brought against her before the Tribunal. Apart from that, and while it would be a matter...

8. [2019] NZEnvC 095 View West Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...[51]-[52] The Council failed to explore settlement. 6 [17] At the heart of this case was the fact that the Council had identified this as a dangerous building in 2012 but had not identified what works were to be undertaken by the church in response. Clearly the works could include demolition as per s 51 of the Building Act 2004. [18] In the absence of any identified works in the Dangerous Building Notice, the applicant, after considerable investigation, determined that the buil...

9. Nicholls v Nicholls - Koromatua 3A [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 604 (2018 APPEAL 604) [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...Māori freehold land. [4] In 2007, the appellant and his family moved back to the land at Oamaru. William Nicholls operated the camp ground until the appellant took over in 2010.2 [5] On 15 August 2011, the WT Nicholls Trust was established.3 The responsible trustees are Mark Nicholls, Airini Tukerangi, Delace James, Kahutoroa Tukerangi, Viv Nicholls, Anita Norman and Sarah Nicholls. Land owned by the WT Nicholls Estate was vested in the trustees. This land included the camp gr...

10. UK v WM LCRO 144/2013 (2 September 2016) [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...confidential reporting to the Law Society. [8] Mr [WM] responded to the Complaints Service on 19 February 2013 indicating he considered the complaint lacked merit and he did not wish to comment on it. [9] Mr [UK] was critical of Mr [WM] and his response in a number of respects, but clarified that the heart of his complaint was that Mr [WM] had disrespected Mr [YB], and had failed to report apparent misconduct to the Law Society.8 Standards Committee processes [10] The Commi...