Search Results

1. [2017] NZEnvC 033 Brownlie Brothers Limited v Far North District Council [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...NRC confirming its notice of requirement filed on 4 December 2015 (ENV-2015-AKL-000153); and c) An appeal under s 120 of the Act by Brownlie Brothers Ltd against decisions of the Far North District Council (FNDC) and the NRC granting resource consents to the NRC as applicant filed on 4 December 2015 3 (ENV-2015-AKL-000155). [3] By the beginning of 2017, after unsuccessful mediation and several case management directions, the proceedings were on a timetable for hearing on or af...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 252 Beachlands South Limited Partnership v Auckland Council [pdf, 391 KB]

   ...appeals ENV-2024-AKL-105, 106 and 107 and 3 application to strike out the Council as Appellant (the PC88 appeals), the Court directs: (1) The parties are to file a further joint memorandum with the Court by 31 October 2024 providing the consent documentations settling all Plan Change 88 appeals (and the strike out); (2) If they are not able to complete all matters by that date, they may seek a two- week extension on two occasions, to a total time to the end of November 2024;...

3. 2021-11-04 Minute - PC8 - re Witnesses at Hearing [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...quantity). [6] Given the commonality and in light of the court’s decision on PC7, ORC’s planning and regulatory witnesses are to reflect on the effectiveness of a proposed new Policy 7.D.6 and its reference to matters to be considered, where a consent is sought for the discharge of effluent in the context of the reference to “… the measures proposed to reduce nitrogen discharged over the term of a resource consent …”. [7] Following on from that, the court notes the pro...

4. BK v YM LCRO 177 / 2010 (14 April 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Respondent was in possession of information provided to her by Mr YL which she failed to reveal to the Applicant and Ms YL; 2. The Respondent provided affidavit evidence at the behest of Counsel for Ms YL and AAU without seeking the Applicant’s consent to do so, thereby breaching privilege and confidence; and 3. In making the decision to provide evidence, the Respondent took advice only from counsel for Ms YL and AAU, and did not seek the views of the Applicant or his Counsel....

5. [2022] NZIACDT 24 - DA v Ji (20 September 2022) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...is applicable in professional disciplinary proceedings. However, the quality of the evidence required to meet that standard may differ in cogency, depending on the gravity of the charges.18 [48] The Tribunal has received from the Registrar the statement of complaint (6 April 2022) and a file of paginated supporting documents. [49] The complainant filed a statement of reply (12 April 2022). He confirmed that the facts are correctly presented in the statement of complaint. [50]...

6. La Grouw as Trustee of the GJ Peacocke Trust v Rantin & MRA Architects Ltd [2011] NZWHT Auckland 8 [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...ground level. At the back of the deck an external stair leads up onto it. [3] Ms La Grouw approached Mr Mark Rantin, the first respondent, who is a qualified architect, to draw the plans. Mr Rantin drew a concept plan and obtained resource consent for the alteration and the addition of the deck, but he did not carry on and provide drawings for building consent because of another pressing commitment that arose unexpectedly. He suggested to Mr La Grouw that Mr Watson, who is a...

7. Trustees Executors Ltd as trustee for the Simpson Family Trust v Wellington City Council [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...contract. [7] Mrs O’Callaghan drew plans from the architect’s sketches for a Firth masonry villa. Mrs O’Callaghan worked with Firth and Brunsdon Cathie Ltd, a design engineering company, in producing the plans. Application for building consent was made on or about 24 December 1993. Page 4 [8] The project was put out to tender. Two tenders were received. Neither tender was accepted though the Simpsons entered into negotiations with Heyhoe Builders Limited, (th...

8. 2023-08-101114-O2NL-JWS-Planning.pdf [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...matter of the direct referral of applications for resource consents and notices of requirement under sections 87G and 198E of the Act for the Ōtaki to North of Levin project By NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY-WAKA KOTAHI Applicant JOINT STATEMENT OF PLANNING EXPERTS 10, 11 and 14 August 2023 Page 3 INTRODUCTION 1. This joint witness statement relates to expert conferencing on the topic of planning. 2. The expert conferencing was held on 10, 11 and 14 August 2023,...

9. Liu & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...conclude that Mr Marevich was not responsible for the quality of the cladding installation and, as he did not assume such responsibility, he did not owe a duty of care to the claimants. [36] Although Mr Marevich knew that the PBS producer statements were issued in his name, he did not sign the statement issued in respect of this dwelling. I therefore conclude that Mr Marevich has no personal responsibility for negligent misstatement. For these reasons the claim against Mr M...

10. [2023] NZEnvC 186 Lund v Dunedin City Council [pdf, 1.1 MB]

    ...considered. In summary, the decision was made that the GR1 zone is the most efficient and effective to maintain residential immunity in the surrounding area and expansion beyond that governed by existing use rights is better managed by resource consent which under the zoning would be a noncomplying activity. [22] For reasons that are stated in the balance of this decision we come to a different decision to the Council at first instance. In the circumstances of this unusual sight...