Search Results

1. GM v TT LCRO 31 / 2011 (24 November 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith. Subsection (f) permits the Standards Committee to exercise its discretion to take no further action if it considers that there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal (other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or make a complaint to the Ombudsman), that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. [4] The Applicant sought a review of the Standards Committee...

2. H Trustees Ltd v PT [2024] NZDT 512 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...Judicata, which translates from Latin as “a thing judged” refers to a final decision on a dispute, which bars any further claim about the same issues being brought. The reasoning behind the doctrine is that litigation should be final (barring an appeal) to protect the integrity and efficiency of the justice system. The doctrine is designed to prevent a party from bringing a claim more than once if that particular claim has been subjected to a final judgment by a Court or Tribunal...

3. [2023] NZEnvC 213 Clutha District Council v Otago Regional Council [pdf, 219 KB]

   CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL – STAY DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 213 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s325 of the Act BETWEEN CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL (ENV-2023-CHC-95) Appellant AND OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge P A Steven Sitting alone under s309(1) of the Act Hearing: In Chambers at Christch...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 246 Horticulture New Zealand v Waikato District Council [pdf, 261 KB]

   Horticulture NZ v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2023] NZEnvC 246 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN HORTICULTURE NEW ZEALAND (ENV-2022-AKL-000043) Appellant AND WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge S M Tepania sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Last case event: 1...

5. C Ltd v Q Ltd & D Ltd [2023] NZDT 289 (27 July 2023) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...person who:1 Acquires from a supplier goods or services that are ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption 1 Section 2, CGA CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 6 26. In Nesbit v Porter,2 the Court of Appeal was required to decide whether a Nissan Navara ute met the definition of goods that are ordinarily acquired for domestic or household use. The Court heard evidence that approximately 20% of purchasers used the vehicle exclusively for p...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 51 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...notified to the parties by way of a minute dated 18 January 2022. Application for stay [5] Mr Halse has now applied to stay determination of the costs application pending the outcome of judicial review proceedings to be filed in the Court of Appeal in relation to a separate case which he is involved in.3 1 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [2022] NZEmpC 149, [2022] ERNZ 717. 2 Shaw v Bay of Plenty District Health Board NZERA Auckland 5593008, 23 May 2017; Shaw v Bay of P...

7. XT v TT & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 622 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...personally. 24. It is well established that directors and employees who act negligently can be liable for the consequences of their actions alongside the company they work for. In the case of BC 202254 v Taylor [2008] NZCA 317, the Court of Appeal held that the limited liability of a company limits the financial risk of shareholders and is not intended to provide directors and senior employees with immunity from their tortious acts. The issue is whether the director exerts a suffi...

8. DU v BT [2024] NZDT 764 (17 September 2024) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...had jurisdiction, for the reasons set out in paragraphs [7] to [16]. 6. For the current claim, BT has repeated her submission that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. In support, she provided a copy of a District Court decision [N v N]. That was an appeal from the Disputes Tribunal’s refusal to hear a claim due to lack of jurisdiction. That case concerned an allegation by [Mr N] that his wife had orally agreed to cancel child support payments, including arrears. [Mrs N] denied ever...

9. Costs & disbursements

   You can submit this file type electronically and pay any associated fee through  File and Pay. On this page: Awarding costs and disbursements What can you claim? Appealing a costs order Security for costs Awarding costs and disbursements In this section, ‘costs’ refers to the expense of hiring a lawyer. ‘Disbursements’ refers to the expenses you incur in taking the proceeding (other than the lawyer’s fees), for example, the court filing fees. After a judgment is delivered the judge...

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Going to court >
   3. Going to court without a lawyer >
   4. Representing yourself in a civil case in the High Court

10. [2022] NZEnvC 126 Guthrie v Queenstown lakes District Council [pdf, 239 KB]

    GUTHRIE & ORS v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2022] NZEnvC 126 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN EJL GUTHRIE RM and LK NEWMAN McCULLOCH TRUSTEES 2004 LIMITED BANCO TRUSTEES LIMITED (ENV-2019-CHC-015) Appellants AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge MJL Dickey, sitting alone...