Search Results

1. [2019] NZEnvC 175 Stone v Hastings District Council [pdf, 684 KB]

   ...are to be paid to the Council by the appellants. Stone - Costs Decision 2 REASONS Introduction [1] By application dated August 2017, Brett and Mary Stone (the Stones) applied through their agent, Development Nous Limited, for a resource consent as follows: Land use consent is sought to gain consent for a two-lot rural subdivision at 826 Te Apiti Road, Waimarama. [2] The application was processed as a non-notified application and consent was refused by Council staff acting u...

2. COES – EiC – P Murray (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 530 KB]

   ...following submission: (a) Water quality and aquatic habitat in the Manuherikia has been steadily deteriorating. (b) The ORC’s current planning framework for managing water, particularly making decisions about transitioning deemed permits to RMA consents, is unfit for purpose. (c) Plan Change 7 is necessary as a holding mechanism while the ORC completes a planning framework that adequately meets the community’s aspirations for its rivers and that meets the NPS-FM. Submiss...

3. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...for the broad proposal provided by Mr Lunken; selected the exterior cladding; liaised with the window designer to specify the design of the flashings; liaised with the contractor installing the glass balustrade; failed to get a producer statement for the liquid applied membrane on the roof or to ensure that this membrane was applied by an approved applicator; and failed to detect the construction defects when he was on site, in particular the lack of clearance between...

4. Staite v Greenville - Paeroa East 4B2C2 (2002) 264 Rotorua MB 132 (264 ROT 132) [pdf, 711 KB]

   ...bridge could quite simply have been built without any interference with the old bridge. It is said for McMillan that there is no specific evidence that he entered onto the land of the applicants. It appears that is right. In paragraph 9 of his statement of defense he says, lilt is admitted that the second respondent assisted the first respondent in the course and scope of his employment to recover certain parts of the bridge that belonged to the first respondent." The referen...

5. CAC 405 v Phillips [2016] NZREADT 39 [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...required, it requires a deliberate departure from accepted standards or such serious negligence as, although not deliberate to portray indifference and abuse of the privileges which accompany registration.” [15] The Tribunal have also considered the statements made by this Tribunal in CAC v Gollins [2015] NZREADT 2. That case involved a more serious breach of the agent’s obligations in that he tried to pass off an agency agreement which was signed two years after the event as a doc...

6. BORA Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...of the Bill if enacted will replace s 28A of the Ombudsman Act 1975 (the Act). 4. The existing s 28A says that no person may use the name ‘Ombudsman’ in connection with any business, trade, occupation or services unless the Chief Ombudsman consents in writing to them doing so. There is no restriction on the type or class of persons (natural or legal) to whom the Chief Ombudsman may grant consent. 5. Successive chief ombudsmen developed criteria to guide their decisions on reques...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 080 Digital Signs Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 282 KB]

   ..._________________________________________________________________ A: The application is refused. B: There is no order as to costs. 2 REASONS Introduction [1] Digital Signs Ltd applies under s 310 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for the following declaration: A resource consent is not required to erect domes and LED displays at 89 Gavin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland as per building consent plans BCO10367792. [2] Auckland Council opposes the making of this decl...

8. Dunstable v Leighton LCRO 73 / 2009 (14 July 2009) [pdf, 16 KB]

   ...replied on 11 November stating that he was referring the accounts to Mr X. He also noted that “we do have some funds in the event that there was a dispute of any kind and payment is able only to be made thereafter”. Mr Dunstable took this as a statement that funds for the purpose of payment of the invoices were held by Mr Leighton. Mr X did not consent to the invoices being paid. Mr Dunstable was of the view that Mr Leighton (or his firm) was properly responsible for payment of t...

9. E29 Urban Design and Landscape Architecture JWS [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   Page 1 EXPERT WITNESS CONFERENCING In the matter: of a direct referral application under section 87G of the Resource Management Act 1991 for resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America’s Cup in Auckland Applicant: Panuku Development Auckland ENV-AKL-2018-000078 Topic: Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Date: 7th August 2018 Meetings held: 26th July 2018 (Environment Court, Federal Street); 30th July 201

10. [2020] NZREADT 10 - Kettle (10 March 2020) [pdf, 155 KB]

    ...[8] In his subsequent complaint to the Authority, the complainant said that Mr Kettle had told Mr Weaver that he had appraised 5J at $695,000 and that the complainant had declined to list 5J with him as a result. He complained that Mr Kettle’s statement had had an adverse effect on negotiations for the sale of 5J. [9] There was some dispute as to what Mr Kettle said to Mr Weaver. Both Mr Platt (in statements to the Authority on behalf of Mr Kettle and the Agency), and Mr Walker...