Search Results

1. ENVC Matiatia expert witness acoustics addnl 2014 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations (DoC 2012). Page 3 01'5 191 Primary data: • Styles Group ambient noise measurements. Matiatia Bay 9-13 July 20 10 and 22-23 September 2013. Areas that have been resolved [ 101 Arcas Ihal han> hecl1 resolved amongst witnesses: • The experts agree that there is sufficient evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that the use of the L.\~q noise level descriptor and associated noise limits for operational...

2. Taka v Watene - Koparakore A32A2B3B (2017) 34 Tākitimu MB 163 (34 TKT 163) [pdf, 427 KB]

   ...freehold land, 10.6558 hectares in area. It was created by partition order dated 7 April 1967.1 There are 32 owners holding 4,213.00 shares. There is currently no management structure in place. 1 101 Napier MB 56 (101 NA 56). See also 94 Napier MB 48 (94 NA 48) 64 Tākitimu MB 164 [4] According to the Court’s record, two occupation orders already exist over areas of Koparakore A32A2B3B in favour of Benjamin Richard T...

3. BORA Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...new telecommunications levy and imposes an obligation on each liable person to pay that amount to the Crown. New ss 81, 82, 83, 94B and 100BA(2) and (3) enable the Commerce Commission to require the relevant parties to provide information. Under s 101(1)(b) the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make recommendations which prescribe the information that must be provided under s 83. 8. Clause 24 inserts new Part 4AA. Sections 156AW and 156AX enable the Commission to require fibr...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 53 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...of elaboration on its memorandum, the Authority noted that as the decision maker that is named in the judicial review under s 9(3) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, its filing of a statement of defence is governed by s 10(2) rather than s 10(1) of that Act which provides a discretion, not an obligation, to file a statement of defence. [12] Ms Taylor further submitted that it was settled practice in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions for courts and tribunals, when thei...

5. Warminister v Flint and Radnorshire LCRO 202 / 2009 (18 February 2010) [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...certain documents to the Complaints Committee when answering the first complaint. [20] There is no professional breach in this. While the Complaints Committee could have required Mr Flint to produce identified documents or indeed the entire file (s 101(3)(d) Law Practitioners Act 1982) it did not do so. Mr Flint was entitled to present to the Committee those documents he considered supported his stance. If Mr Warminister considered that other documents (which he states he is in poss...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 70 Pietras v Vegar [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...what further steps they wish to take, including by way of challenge 10 At [23]. 11 Fletcher v Sharp Tudhope Lawyers [2014] NZEmpC 182 at [18]. 12 Subject to Employment Relations Act 2000, s 157. 13 UXK v Talent Propellor Ltd [2022] NZEmpC 101, [2022] 1 ERNZ 396. to the Court, which can be on a de novo basis. If the Authority finds the present defendant was not the person who had employed Mr Pietras, and Mr Pietras considers that to be incorrect, he may challenge th...

7. BL & UL v AX [2014] NZIACDT 9 (05 February 2014) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...would the Tribunal need to examine the failure to deal properly with the instructions. The adviser’s Statement of Reply [10] The adviser’s Statement of Reply makes two material responses to the complaint in relation to his responsibility: [10.1] That the provisional licence holder has claimed she only had a preliminary discussion and the potential clients did not engage her at that time. She claimed persons in her Tonga office had potentially acted dishonestly. [10.2] Regardless...

8. TN v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 388 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...was a reasonable price and filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal for an order that she was not required to pay the remainder. Q Ltd counterclaimed for the remainder to be paid. 2. This is a claim for a declaration of non-liability under section 10(1)(b) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 and a counterclaim for the amount outstanding, which despite minor differences when the claims were filed, the parties agreed in the hearing was $3,081.78. 3. The issues to be determined were as f...

9. Glossary-of-firearm-terms-for-the-Arms-Act-public-consultation.pdf [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...semi-automatic pistol The Act defines this as a semi-automatic pistol that: • has an overall length of 400 millimetres or less, excluding any silencer, pistol carbine conversion kit, or other muzzle-fitting attachment • has a barrel length of 101 millimetres or more • is capable of firing specified ammunition only at a muzzle velocity of 1,600 feet per second or less • is suitable for shooting on a certified pistol range. The definition of a prohibited magazine in the Act...

10. OT v XQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 619 (22 August 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

    ...Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 619 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT XQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: A. OT is to pay $2,400.00 to XQ Ltd on or before 19 September 2024. B. There is a declaration under section 10(1)(b) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 that no further sums are payable to XQ Ltd by OT, as at 22 August 2024. Reasons 1. During about March 2024, OT parked his car in a car park controlled by XQ Ltd near his apartment for sho...