Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 243 Ohau Protection Society Incorporated v Waitaki District Council [pdf, 16 MB]

   ...consider, 'subject to Part 2' including: (a) actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity (i.e. the Proposal) ; (b) relevant provisions of the WDP; (c) relevant provisions of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2013 CRPS'); (d) any other matters we consider relevant and reasonably necessary to our determination. Meaning of 'Subject to Part 2' in relation to RPS and WDP provisions [10] Part 2 specifies the RMA's s...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 8 Commissioner of Police v New Zealand Police Assoc Inc [pdf, 464 KB]

   ...particular situations being looked at on a case by case basis in terms of what is reasonable for Police to expect when it requires an employee to rotate to a new location. [52] The production of this document led to the filing of the Association’s statement of problem in the Authority on 9 March 2018. Events which followed the filing of the statement of problem [53] The 2015-2018 CEA expired on 1 July 2018, and was replaced by the current CEA, which runs to 2021. T...

3. Waikato and Waipa River Iwi [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...Whaimana) to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and Waipā Rivers and activities within their catchments affecting the Waikato and Waipā Rivers.6 (c) To give effect to Te Ture Whaimana (as part of the regional policy statement) in regional and district 8. The Iwi Co-Governors agree with, and support, the following PC1 decisions made by the Panel, which are cognisant of the statutory imperatives (Core Decisions): (a) The interpretation of the stat...

4. Surrogacy_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 862 KB]

   ...Office Circular CO (09) 1. 4wj93wltcr 2023-08-14 17:31:51 Section (9)(2)(f)(iv) Section (9)(2)(f)(iv) Section (9)(2)(f)(iv) 10 I N C O N F I D E N C E Impact Analysis Regulatory Impact Statement 47 Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements apply to the proposals in this paper and a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared and is attached. 48 A Regulatory Impact Analysis Quality Assurance Panel from the Ministr...

5. Harland v ACC [2014] NZACA 13 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...in Adair v ACC [2010] NZACA 5, that when an appeal is withdrawn because of a mistake or lack of intention rather than dismissed, and provided there is no abuse of process, it may be brought back for hearing. I said that I considered that a simple statement that the appeal was withdrawn under a mistake of fact and that the determination of the (s 80(3)) application on its merits and with the appellant having the right to be heard would suffice. I made directions for the filing of an appl...

6. [2020] NZEnvC 174 Hamilton City Council v Global Metal Solutions Limited.pdf [pdf, 3.7 MB]

   ...Rimmington Drive within the Residential Zone near to the GMS site are exceeded by it, thereby adversely affecting the amenity and wellbeing of some of the residents who live there. [2] The application is opposed by the respondents, who although claiming they have existing use rights, accept that relocating the business to another site is the best option; however, they contend they need up to two years to do so. The Council submitted that, if the Court allows an extended period for f...

7. Brown v REAA & Wealleans [2011] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...Street when CISL’s duty as agent for the vendor was to act in the interest of the Trust”. [14] A second charge says that Ms Brown permitted CISL to provide misleading information to the complainant in the marketing of the property. It sets out statements from the promotional materials provided in the first, second and third meetings with the Wealleans. [15] Section 4 gives a definition of real estate agency work. To be real estate agency work there must be work done or service...

8. Auckland Standards committee 2 v Burcher Short [2015] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...with that taken 16 by the Tribunal in the Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 of the New Zealand Law Society v A.11 [67] For those reasons we decline to make an order for compensation. Costs [68] The Standards Committee have claimed costs in the sum of $84,222.96. Although the matter occupied two days of hearing, it proceeded as a penalty only hearing, with no requirement for Standards Committee witnesses or proof of the charges. [69] The practitioners, whi...

9. McIntyre v CAC 20003 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 26 [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...is not merely about using YouTube for marketing real estate but that she believed the appellant had been too casual generally, in removing sold properties from his listings. The Stance of the Authority [41] Ms Earl refers to the appellant’s claim that there is no evidence he was asked by the owners of 167 Taha Road to remove the YouTube advertising, and submits: [a] there is evidence from the owners that they emailed the licensee to advise that they wanted him to cease advertising...

10. BW v DJ LCRO 9 / 2013 (20 September 2013) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...relationship property agreements unless they are fully instructed to first ascertain the parties’ asset and liability position. Some lawyers also require clients to sign an indemnity in the hope that will afford some protection against adverse claims made by clients with the benefit of hindsight. DJ, however, accepted instructions in a way that attracted professional risk for her as a lawyer, and personal risk to BW in relying on her advice. No doubt with hindsight, DJ is aware t...