Search Results

1. 2021-03-19 Fish & Game 1 Proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Level as at 19 March 2021 [pdf, 495 KB]

   ...2. The notification of this discussion document forms part of the formal submission process. The process of developing a national environmental standard differs from the statutory plan and resource consent process in that there are no hearings, appeal provisions or First Schedule consultation. However, the RMA requires that the Minister provide an opportunity for the public and iwi authorities to comment on the proposed NES. That opportunity is provided through submissions on this discu...

2. LCRO 138/2015 AZ, VY and CX v DW and EV [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...began acting for the respondents, his experience “included 45 commercial litigation cases resulting in judgments” most of which, if not all, were High Court cases. Mr KQ further deposed that at least one of the matters went to the Court of Appeal several times and the Privy Council.1 [15] The applicants say that the respondents requested their matters be allocated to Mr KQ, because he had a lower hourly rate ($250 per hour) compared to partner rates (up to $450 for Mr AZ). The...

3. CAC20004 v Whisker [2015] NZREADT 61 [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...towards penalty whether by a further hearing about penalty or, by consent, with a series of succinct submissions about penalty on the papers. 16 [93] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms C...

4. AF v X Standards Committee LCRO 84/2014 [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...not desire that action be taken or, as the case may be, continued; or (e) the complainant does not have sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the complaint; or (f) there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. (2) Despite anything in subsection (1), a Standards Committee ma...

5. Williams v Attorney-General [2024] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...provision as creating a “positive duty” to assist an individual to obtain their private information.10 In that case, the Tribunal had found that WINZ had breached s 38 as a particular staff member had not responded adequately to Mr Holmes. On appeal, the High Court emphasised that the assistance only has to be “reasonable” and that the standard should take into account the ability of the person seeking information to respond and also the context. 11 Submissions on reasonab...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 117 Morgan v Whanganui College Board of Trustees [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...7 (1992) 5 PRNZ 447. 8 (1996) 9 PRNZ 164. 9 At [38]. [33] Further, Judge Couch found that the conclusion in the City Realties case was inconsistent with a judgment of the Court of Appeal in D F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pastoral Ltd 10 where Hardie Boys J said: 11 The privilege attached to “without prejudice” communications is based to a large degree on considerations of public policy. It is intended t

7. [2021] NZEmpC 208 ABC v DEF [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...There are protections which may facilitate the process. First, confidentiality is provided for in s 148 of the Act. There have been many discussions as to the scope of the section. The leading case is Just Hotel Ltd v Jesudhass where the Court of Appeal remarked that the provision reflected “the desirability of encouraging the parties to a 27 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 188(2)(a) and (b). 28 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 188(2)(c). 29 FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102 at [...

8. CAC304 v Morris [2016] NZREADT 4 [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...papers only. We direct the Registrar to now arrange a Directions Hearing by phone of counsel with our Chairperson to fix procedure to deal with penalty. [85] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms C...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ravelich [2011] NZLCDT 11 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...particular issue which could affect the standing of the legal profession, or which indicated a risk issue for a lawyer’s clients. 21 [75] Mr Ravelich has pleaded guilty to all of the charges. He did note the possibility of seeking leave to appeal out of time in respect of some of his convictions, but that process had not commenced at the time of hearing and we place no weight on that submission. Decision [76] Mr Ravelich has pleaded guilty to all charges. In doing s...

10. Head Heights Limited v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 129 KB]

    ...Honour was not required to resolve the question of whether a building consent could be obtained for targeted repairs. [29] The same question was considered recently by the High Court in Chee v Stareast Investment Limited.5 Chee involved an appeal from a 4 Body Corporate 185960 v North Shore City Council (Kilham Mews). 5 Chee v Stareast Investment Limited [2012] NZHC 133. Page | 10 decision by the Tribunal t...