Search Results

1. Motu v Rapihana - Pukepoto 8B15B3B Residue (2022) 256 Taitokerau MB 150 (256 TTK 150) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...WĀHANGA Under Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Pukepoto 8B15B3B Residue I WAENGA I A Between HEATHER MOTU, MAGGIE HAGGART, MEREANA NEIL, KRIST, MARTIN CHAPMAN AND SUMMER MOTU AS RESPONSIBLE TRUSTEES OF THE TE OTI RAPIHANA AHU WHENUA TRUST Ngā kaitono Applicants ME And NORMAN RAPIHANA Te kaiurupare Respondent Whakataunga: Judgment date 21 December 2022 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIW...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 053 Bennett v Dunedin City Council [pdf, 761 KB]

   ...Regional Council and the Dunedin City Council. iv. The communal wastewater system must be installed and operated in accordance with a legal instrument that: 1. is registered in favour of Dunedin City Council; and 2. gives ownership and management responsibilities to a residents’ association, which all lot owners must be members of, and which will be responsible for ensuring that the system is appropriately monitored, serviced, maintained 12 and operated, in accordance with the...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 152 Ngai Taiwhakaea v Whakatane District Council [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...a position that was clear in law; (ii) TRONA failed to explore reasonably available options for settlement: MMS sought to engage with the Appellants in relation to both the substantive appeals and the issue of costs but received limited to no response; and (b) TRONA’s conduct has forced MMS to seek additional legal advice 11 Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] NZHC 2577, (2021) 23 ELRNZ 29, (2021) 26 PRNZ 10. 12 The Canyon Vineyard Li...

4. [2022] NZREADT 6 - Lawrence v REAA (11 April 2022) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...question before the Tribunal is whether the Registrar’s determination should be confirmed, reversed or modified. In answering that question, the Tribunal will consider the same information that was provided to the Registrar, including the licensees’ response. Any submissions or evidence that the licensees give will be necessary to answering that question. [25] For this reason, the licensees reject the Registrar’s submission that their rights will be protected by the Committee...

5. BO & CO v MI [2022] NZDT 1 (14 February 2022) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...removal of the additional height that was added to the fence. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Is the existing fence a boundary fence? (b) Was the addition to the fence authorised? (c) Is the existing fence adequate? (d) Who is responsible for undertaking the work to be done on the fence? (e) Are there any other orders that should be made about the fence or land covenant that applies to both titles? Is the existing fence a boundary fence? 3. Owners of adjo...

6. LCRO 77/2021 GS and VU v CN and SW (23 March 2022) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...the parties for the constructive manner in which they responded to my enquiry and consider this to be the most beneficial outcome for both parties. 7 The findings of unsatisfactory conduct [42] The authors of the text Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer have this to say about the term “unsatisfactory conduct”:9 … In general, unsatisfactory conduct will be conduct which is not so egregious as to amount to misconduct but is still deserving of being marked o...

7. [2021] NZEnvC 125 Dewhirst v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   ...qualified person undertakes a site inspection and supply evidence to the Council to demonstrate that the terms and conditions of this Order have been complied with. Such evidence is to include photographs and a letter from the party, or parties, responsible for doing anything to ensure compliance with completing this Order. Such evidence is to be provided within nineteen months of this enforcement order being granted. D: For the avoidance of doubt, this Order does not authorise...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 169 Hairland Holdings Ltd v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employmment [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...declaration that the hairstylists named by the Inspector in her report were contractors not employees. [4] Hairland’s statement of problem cited the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as the respondent. In response the Chief Executive denied the Authority had jurisdiction to make a decision about the work status of the stylists and pleaded that the wrong respondent was named. The Chief Executive’s position was that if the work status of th...

9. 20230621-Regulatory-Systems-Primary-Industries-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...amends the following principal Acts and some associated secondary legislation: a. Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, b. Animal Products Act 1999, c. Animal Welfare Act 1999, d. Biosecurity Act 1993, e. Climate Change Response Act 2002, f. Commodity Levies Act 1990, g. Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001, h. Fisheries Act 1996, i. Food Act 2014, j. Forests Act 1949, k. Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014, l. National Animal...

10. SU v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 259 (6 March 2024) [pdf, 111 KB]

    ...the claim relates to both, despite G Ltd also being the supplier of the 2020 Element. In any event, I note that SU says that, in March 2023 when he purchased the element to replace the 2020 Element, he raised with G Ltd’s staff member G Ltd’s responsibilities under the CGA, but he was told that there was only a one-year remedy on spare parts. I am therefore satisfied that G Ltd was given an opportunity to remedy the problem with the 2020 Element when it failed in 2023, but chose not to...