Search Results

1. 2020-12-07 Statement of Evidence of Tom de Pelsemaeker on behalf of the ORC - Appendix C [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...minimum flow and allocation limits for some of the larger catchments (e.g. the Taieri, upper Manuherekia, Luggate, and Pomahaka). The most recent of the plan changes (PC5A - Lindis: Integrated water management) was notified in 2013 and is still under appeal in the Environment Court where appellants have disputed its proposed minimum flow limit. 13 Another plan change (PC6A) on water quality became operative in 2014 but also provided for a deferment of the rules for limiting n...

2. Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...and would be deeply damaging to the public interest. 19 Professor Grant Huscroft [89] Professor Grant Huscroft, then a tenured professor of law at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada, but now of the Ontario Court of Appeal, gave expert opinion evidence by AVL on five issues relating to s 61 of the HRA and its interaction with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Those issues, as formulated by the solicitors for Fairfax were: [89.1] What does the rig...

3. [2023] NZEnvC 141 Nature Preservation Trustee Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 30 MB]

   NATURE PRESERVATION TRUSTEE LIMITED v QLDC – CONSENT ORDER IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 141 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN NATURE PRESERVATION TRUSTEE LIMITED (ENV-2022-CHC-42) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J J M Hassan – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Chr...

4. Rātima v Sullivan - The Tataraakina C Trust (2015) 41 Takitimu MB 102 (41 TKT 102) [pdf, 531 KB]

   ...of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise). [47] It is well established that the supervisory powers of this Court in relation to trusts are extensive. In Proprietors of Mangakino Township v Māori Land Court the Court of Appeal commented: 30 [21] In carrying out a general review of this kind the Court ought to concentrate on the broader picture and not become drawn into matters of detail, but it is in our view impossible to see any bright line between matt...

5. Hartley v Balemi [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...any of the actual building work on any of the parts that now leak. He was a director dealing with the company’s business. 8.4.3 Mr Cogswell submits that the leading case on the assumption of personal liability by directors is the Court of Appeal in Trevor Ivory v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517. This case sets out the test to determine whether a director should be seen to have assumed an actual or imputed duty of care to other persons. I accept that I should use Trevor Ivory as...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 223 FGH v RST [pdf, 688 KB]

   ...that the Court’s task is to examine objectively the employer’s decision-making process and determine whether what the employer did, and how it was done, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.6 Subsequently, the Court of Appeal in A Ltd v H discussed s 103A and observed:7 [46] It is apparent that the effect of the statute is that there may be a variety of ways of achieving a fair and reasonable result in a particular case. As the Court in Angus observed, t...

7. RIS Regulatory Systems Justice Amendment Bill package [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...parties, if necessary to fulfil its functions. The provision would include an offence for failure to comply with a notice without reasonable excuse. The offence of failure to comply with a notice would be heard in the District Court, with right of appeal to the High Court. The penalty would be a maximum fine of $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a body corporate. The limit for an individual would align with maximum fines in other occupational regulatory regimes for similar offending,...

8. [2025] NZLVT 13 - Northview Capital Ltd v Hamilton City Council (21 March 2025) [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...matter of doubt, which if it exists means that the court should lean towards the owner as may be justified by the evidence, but on fairly generous rather than niggardly terms. [footnote omitted] 17 [36] The claimant in Flath sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Leave was declined in terms that do not impact the statements of the law set out above.9 Liberality [37] The principle of liberality referred to in Speedy as quoted above and Flath was discussed in Auckland...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 101 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...Authority nor the Court is strictly bound by the provisions of the EA, guidance is often obtained from its provisions. Thus, s 69 has been referred to by the Authority from time to time,25 and by the Court.26 [88] As explained by the Court of Appeal in the leading authority of R v X,27 confidential information may be disclosed in Court unless the Judge gives a direction under s 69(2) having regard to the factors in s 69(3).28 It is clear from the judgment that what is required is...

10. 2021-03-11 Nga Runanga - opening submissions [pdf, 443 KB]

    ...effect to the NPSFM rather than the existing one. 28. The decision of the Environment Court in Clutha District Council v Otago Regional Council16 is also relevant to the issue of consent duration in the context of PC7. The Court declined an appeal by the District Council, seeking a 35-year term for a permit to take and use surface water from the north branch of Te Mata-Au. The Regional Council granted the consent for a 25-year term, and the Environment Court upheld that decision....