Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 164 Waikato Regional Council v Rawhiti Environmental Park Limited [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...A subsequent Abatement Notice was served on REPL on 21 June 2023 under 9 s 15 RMA to cease unlawful discharge. A further Abatement Notice was served on 23 June 2023 under s 17 RMA to remedy or mitigate the unlawful discharge. REPL appealed these Abatement Notices on 31 July 2023 and applied for a stay on these notices. The Council has since decided to cancel these notices because this process has overtaken them. Immediate issues in August 2023 On 1 August 2023 the Co...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...remove a matter, the party may apply for the special leave of the Court to have the matter removed.19 [20] Removal under s 178 is contemplated in relatively limited circumstances. Some confusion has been caused by a statement from the Court of Appeal reflecting this expectation but then referring to the “particular caution expected in cases that have not been fully investigated by the Authority”.20 Removal under s 178 will only occur in cases that have not been fully investi...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 156 Hoff v The Wood Lifecare Ltd costs [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...he highlighted and stressed the fact that a number of administrative attendances could have been handled by a less experienced person at a lower hourly rate. [23] That criticism is answered, however, in the following passage from the Court of Appeal judgment in Binnie: 9 While details of time involved and charge-out rates are often available and supplied, we do not consider such information is a mandatory requirement in a matter such as this … We have not reached the point wh...

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

   ...responsibility” and concluded that any assessment of contributory negligence turns on the relative blameworthiness and the causal potency of the alleged negligence by the claimant. In O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 (Byron Avenue)9 the Court of Appeal concluded that a failure to obtain a LIM may amount to contributory negligence and warrant a 5 Hartley v Balemi HC Auckland, CIV-2006-404-2589, 29 March 2007 at [100] - [1...

5. Eru v Skipper - Awanui Haparapara (2019) 211 Waiariki MB 103 (211 WAR 103) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...Whānau Trust (2017) 56 Takitimu MB 94 (56 TKT 94) at [11] . 5 Chambers v Keepa – Te Hinau A Pura Whānau Trust (2016) 350 Aotea MB 74 (350 AOT 74) at [46]. 6 Larkins v Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) at [27]. 7 At [30]. 8 At [24]. 211 Waiariki MB 111 should not give effect to this arrangement. However, the Court is not bound by the outcome of a majority vote either in favour of or in opposition to an appl...

6. BORA Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...and has procedures in place to minimise the affront to individuals. 31. We have also examined the proposed changes to section 98 of the Act. Under the proposed changes, a prisoner may be strip searched immediately after a hearing or examination or appeal before a Visiting Justice, or appearing before a hearing adjudicator, tribunal or court (clause 9(1)). A prisoner may also be strip searched before and after a hearing before the New Zealand Parole Board (clause 9(2)) and immediately bef...

7. LCRO 36/2022 EY obo SG v LW (25 July 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...continues to hold the amount recommended by the Committee to be refunded to Mr SG. Nature and scope of review [24] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:14 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It...

8. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 48 [pdf, 101 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000018 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 48 BETWEEN SLAVE TOMOV, LILJANA TOMOVO AND DAVENPORTS WEST TRUSTEE COMPANY (NO 1) LIMITED Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND MODERN HOMES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Second Respondent AND ANDREW THOMAS Third Respondent AND PBS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND GEORGE MAREVICH Fifth Respondent AND ROOF IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED (Removed) Sixth Responde

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Whale [2014] NZLCDT 22 [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...practice in the future. [39] We do accept the submission that the practitioner has been responsible in entering an early plea, however it has to be said that given that this matter was preceded by the findings of the Tribunal, and the High Court on appeal, in Davidson there was no real defence available to him in any event, thus the credit for this plea ought not to be too weighty. Benefit to the practitioner will accrue from the reduced costs arising out of his admission of the ch...

10. Steele v Salisbury School (Costs) [2012] NZHRRT 26 [pdf, 61 KB]

    ...The submissions by Mr Steele [6] In his memorandum dated 30 October 2012 Mr Steele, in part, invites the Tribunal to revisit the facts. This we are unable to do. He also raises irrelevant matters relating to the School’s insurer and to his appeal to the High Court against the Tribunal’s decision. 4 Doing the best we can it would appear that the submissions relevant to the costs issue are: [6.1] At the commencement of the proceedings Mr Steele would have settled for a $3...