Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 059 Balmoral Developments (Outram) Limited v Dunedin City Council [pdf, 375 KB]

   ...such is the case with the NPS- HPL before me. Reference to other decisions on other instruments is of little assistance to the question before this court. 13 Horticulture New Zealand v Manawatu- Wanganui Regional Council [2013] NZHC 2492, at [101]. 14 Horticulture New Zealand v Manawatu- Wanganui Regional Council [2013] NZHC 2492, at [99]. 19 [91] The transitional position under the NPS-HPL is clear; by cl 4.1, until the NPS-HPL has been given effect to in the relevant regional...

2. Body Corporate 85927, 38 Roxborough St v Wellington City Council [2010] NZWHT Wellington 12 [pdf, 203 KB]

   1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-101-000014-22 [2010] NZWHT WELLINGTON 12 BETWEEN BODY CORPORATE 85927 – 38 ROXBOROUGH STREET Claimants AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND CRAIG ALAN STEWART Second Respondent AND DAVID EDWARD STEWART Third Respondent AND ROB BONNER Fourth Respondent AND CAS MANAGEMENT LTD Fifth Respondent AND DESIGN NETWORK KAPITI LTD (Removed) Sixth Respondent AND MARK STEVENS Seventh Respondent...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 057 Far North Holdings Limited v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 5.5 MB]

   ...One particular example given by Mr McKenzie is the fan worm, which has become established in several places in New Zealand, including Whangarei Basin. [14] Essentially, to control these two vectors the Marine Pathway Plan has two rules: Rule 10.1.1 The owner or person in charge of a craft entering Northland must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed "light fouling"; and Rule 10.1.2 The owner or person in charge of a craft moving...

4. ZA v YB LCRO 135/2014 (31 August 2016) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...grounds above. The only remaining issue is whether it is necessary or appropriate to take any further action in respect of Mr ZA’s complaint that Mr YB failed to treat Mr ZA (or any of the lawyers at his chambers) with respect and courtesy as rule 10.1 requires, either by making complaint, or by the terms in which complaint was made. [66] As to the first point, the Act provides for any person to make a complaint. The Committee received the complaint and dealt with it accordingly....

5. Taniora – Te Koutu Mourea Maori Reservation (2014) 91 Waiariki MB 173 (91 WAR 173) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...– s 338(5) TTWMA; c) The excluded site is then partitioned in favour of Erana Waiomio – s 296(1) TTWMA. 1 As at 12 November 2010 according to the List of Current Owners’ Report. 2 101 Rotorua MB 132 (101 ROT 132). 91 Waiariki MB 175 Background [5] It is necessary to briefly set out some of the background to the present application. I have already referred to the s 440/53 order made by the Māori Land Court on...

6. BORA National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...the power to determine whether the detained person is connected with the object of the search. We note that this power may only be exercised for a reasonable period, subject to any conditions imposed by the officer issuing the search warrant (cl 101(1)(a)), and that the provisions relating to privilege also apply (cl 101(1)(b)). 38. Under cl 105, a NAIT officer or NAIT authorised person may stop a vehicle to conduct a search under a warrant. If a NAIT officer exercises a power to stop,...

7. Nicholas v Gibbons - Poike 8E [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 68 (2019 APPEAL 68) [pdf, 408 KB]

   ...Subject to what happens at the next hearing, I intend at this stage to vest the legal interests in the trustees of the Poike 8E Trust; 1 The Māori Trustee – Poike 8E block (2015) 101 Waikato Maniapoto MB 286-311 (101 WAI 286-311). 2 Nicholas – Poike 8E (2018) 162 Waikato Maniapoto MB 90 (162 WAI 90) at [97]-[98]. 2019 Māori Appellate Court MB 70 (d) Section 237 dismissing application A20170006831, being an ap...

8. Smith v Courtney - Ohuirua No 2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 284 (2011 APPEAL 284) [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...dated 30 November 2009, Judge Ambler dismissed the application. A factor which weighed heavily with the Lower Court was that two­ thirds of the owners opposed the easements. Only one other owner supported the appellant - between them they held 10.1 shares out of30 shares. [4] A further factor in the Lower Court's decision to dismiss the application was the view that the development of general land is not a primary objective of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 ("TTWMA")....

9. Auckland 356 Complaints Committee and Auckland No. 1 Standards Committee v Sanders [2010] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...Authority was reduced to writing and/or signed by Mr P on 15 November 2006 with Mr P signing on behalf of himself and Mrs P. (“the Complaints Committee Representation Charge”) [e] That from, on, and after 23 June 2008, in breach of Section 101(6) of the Law Practitioners Act 1982, without lawful justification or excuse he refused or failed, and continued to refuse or fail, to comply with the lawful requirement of Complaints Committee No.1 of the Auckland District Law Society mad...

10. MOJ0344.2M_factsheet_Affected-by-crime_Nov22_MAO_WEB.pdf [pdf, 656 KB]

    ...Waea atu ki te Waea Mōhiohio Pārurenga ki 0800 650 654 ki te rapu mōhiohio mō ērā atu tari tautoko i tō takiwā. E oti pea i a koe te riro tautoko nō Te Kaporeihana Āwhina Hunga Whara (ACC) – waea atu te Nama Waea Āwhina a ACC ki 0800 101 996. Mō ngā kerēme e hāngai ana ki te taitōkai, tēnā waea atu ki te Nama Waea mō ngā Kerēme Pāwera ki 0800 735 566. TE TAIHARA TAIOHI Mēnā nā tētahi taiohi i raro i te pakeke 17 tau te taihara, ka whakaritea te take mā te...