Search Results

1. NJUM v Vole [2020] NZIACDT 5 (29 January 2020) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...last minute of the documents needed, when she should have been given sufficient time to attend to this. She says he was responsible for checking the validity of documents, such as police certificates and medical reports. [60] It is Mr Vole’s responsibility to file complete and therefore valid applications. An application which is missing critical lodgement documents will inevitably be returned or will fail. It is a pointless exercise filing such applications, even if a deadline...

2. [2019] NZREADT 54 - Houliston v CAC 1901, Lohmann & Webb (10 December 2019) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...presentation of offers to Mr Webb. [20] The next matter that the Committee dealt with was the assertion that the licensees did not provide any proof that there were multi-offers and progress with regard to the property. [21] After again noting the responses of the licensees, the Committee concluded that there was another prospective purchaser as evidenced by the emails that had been made available to the Authority investigator. [22] The Committee then dealt with the complaint that...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 245 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...be avoided, mitigated or remedied, the Council will have regard to In the case of mineral extraction, the merits of any proposed environmental compensation, if adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigated or remedied. Anderson Lloyd parties’ response [15] Counsel for the Anderson Lloyd parties submits that removal of 21.21.3.2 and 21.21.3.3 would leave a concerning policy gap in the Rural Zone Assessment Matters with respect to long term or legally secure mechanisms to protect...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 149 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...determination before bringing proceedings because a challenge only needs to be brought “if applicable” under s 184(1A)(b). He submitted that he did not challenge the Authority’s removal determination, so it was not applicable. [35] In response, Mr Beech submitted that Mr Halse has misinterpreted the words “if applicable”. He cites Keys v Flight Centre (NZ) Ltd where a full Court held that “if applicable” means if a right of challenge exists.21 [36] In that...

5. 2022-03-28 Willowridge & RPL - Reply Submissions [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...LIMITED AND REMARKABLES PARK LIMITED Dated: 28 March 2022 1 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Introduction [1] These submissions on behalf of Willowridge Developments Limited and Remarkables Park Limited (Submitters) are made in response to the matters arising out of the hearing of the Otago Regional Council (ORC) Plan Change 8 (PC 8). [2] They address: (a) the alternative permitted activity rule proposed by Ms Hunter; (b) the respective jurisdictions of the Que...

6. 2022-04-01 ORC - Closing Submissions [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...costs. 9 However, on a careful analysis it is clear that the extent of any “duplication” is small and largely unavoidable given the differing functions of regional councils and territorial authorities. In particular: 3 (a) Ms Hunter, in response to questions by the Court, agreed that the requirement for ORC to have a consent for any earthworks on an area greater than 2,500 m2 would not significantly change the requirement to produce an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 102 Crossen v Yangs House Ltd [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...Minimum Wage Act 1983 and Holidays Act 2003 respectively. Additionally, she sought to overturn the Authority’s decision not to impose a penalty on Yangs House and to have any penalty paid to her. [8] Mrs Crossen sought an order making Ms Yang responsible for paying any outstanding minimum entitlements that Yangs House does not pay. Did the Authority err in interpreting the agreement? [9] The linchpin of the Authority’s determination was a conclusion that the settlement ag...

8. [2021] NZIACDT 22 – TC v Registrar of Immigration Advisers (3 September 2021) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...Submissions of the appellant [66] In his submissions of 14 June 2021, the appellant expresses strong disagreement with the Registrar’s decision. [67] It is contended that the false and inaccurate information provided by the adviser was responsible for the decision to leave New Zealand before applying for a visa. Had they been told they could only apply while in New Zealand, they would have stayed. 1 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, s 54(3). http://legislation.govt.nz/...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 164 Zink v Board of Trustees of Southland Boys High School [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [10] Mr Zink signed an individual employment agreement (IEA) with SBHS on 17 December 2014, commencing work for it on 26 January 2015. I will analyse the provisions of the IEA shortly. [11] The payroll responsibilities of the hostel were outsourced to Findex (NZ) Ltd (Findex). The evidence for SBHS is that it relies on Findex to administer the payroll correctly. [12] For the first two years of employment under SBHS, all public holid...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 014 Fleming v Waikato District Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

    ...and to potentially affected persons could be achieved in this case by following a staged process, including time for the parties to approach identified potentially affected persons to notify them of the proposed resolution of the appeal and seek responses and then come back to the Court to discuss whether any more formal process is needed before confirming or rejecting the proposal advanced by the parties. s 293(3) – (5) [23] The parties are not aware of any departures from a...