Search Results

1. McArthur Ridge – EiC – J Rasmussen (4 Feb 2021) [pdf, 11 MB]

   ...incur unnecessary pumping costs and contribute to broader catchment water shortages. 33. The wine industry is already very good at efficient water usage, and continues to strive for efficient and effective water use. 34. Grape growers are careful to only irrigate their vines when they need it, and to only put on enough water to continue fruit development and ripening, but not so much as to potentially harm the crop or the vines or slow ripening. 6 35. MDEL, like...

2. Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club Ltd - Horowhenua Lake 11 (Lake) Māori Reservation (2015) 337 Aotea MB 68 (337 AOT 68) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...the Court stated: 4 [33] It is inappropriate to strike out a claim summarily unless the court can be certain that it cannot succeed. The case must be “so certainly or clearly bad” that it should be precluded from going forward. Particular care is required in areas where the law is confused or developing. [26] In the recent decision of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd, the Court of Appeal also considered the requirements for striking out an appl...

3. BORA Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...the Act (limits on judicial review) and replaces it with several additional subsections that limit the availability of judicial review. New subsection (1A) provides that no review proceedings may be brought in any court unless the Immigration and Protection Tribunal has issued its final determination. New subsection (1B) provides that review proceedings can only be brought with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. 27. We understand that the purpose of the new provisions is...

4. Ngāti Moerewa Māori Incorporation v Sanson - Part Maungakawakawa 20 (2024) 274 Taitokerau MB 292 (274 TTK 292) [pdf, 348 KB]

   ...cannot possibly succeed; (c) The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases; (d) The jurisdiction is not excluded by the need to decide questions of law, even those that require extensive argument; and (e) Particular care is required where the law is confused or developing. [8] I adopt these principles. 3 Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club Ltd – Horowhenua 11 (Lake) (2015) 337 Aotea MB 68 (337 AOT 68); Karena v Hakiwai – Owhaoko C No. 1- (2017) 59 Tak...

5. [2020] NZEnvC 123 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...whether and (if so) on what conditions the proceedings shall be reheard. (3) The decision of the court on any such proceedings shall have the same effect as a decision of the court on the original proceedings. [21] Even where s294 is applicable, careful consideration is required as to whether, and on what basis, any revisiting of a decision would be fair and appropriate. In particular, there should be finality to litigation and the court should not order a re-hearing unless there...

6. Brown v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...degree of expert oversight rather than expect every small owner to take full responsibility and engage an expert adviser". (at page 525, lines 17- 27). 19. To give the clause a wide meaning would result in a person who whilst as owner is protected by “Hamlin”, as vendor becomes potentially liable for any building faults. It would expose to the very risk which the Court of Appeal held is totally inappropriate. (Hamlin page 528). 20. The interpretation which the cla...

7. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Mr U [2024] NZLCDT 10 (9 April 2024) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...extended to other members of the profession who had become involved in the case and indeed to members of the Police. Process to reach a proportionate and fair penalty [4] Accepting that the purpose of this Tribunal is not to punish, but to protect the public, the starting point and any penalty assessment is the seriousness of the conduct.2 [5] The Tribunal must then take into account aggravating and mitigating factors. [6] In order to achieve consistency as far as possible...

8. Jessup v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 70 [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...(RNZAF) for six years between 1980, when he was 17, until 1986. 3. Mr Jessup was involved in aircraft maintenance, specifically the stripping and repainting of aircraft. The paints and paint strippers used contained isocyanates. 4. Personal protective equipment was used and consisted of “off the shelf” items such as air purifying masks with charcoal cartridges, cotton or disposable overalls, rubber gloves and safety goggles. 5. The bulk of Mr Jessup’s work time was spent on...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 34 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in 3 Employment Court Regulations 2000, reg 6; High Court Rules 2006, r 5.45. 4 Davidson v Great Barrier Airlines Ltd, above n 2, at [13]. 5 At [14]. 6...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 41 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 343 KB]

    ...be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the Courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied. Of course, the interest of defendants must also be weighed. They must be prote...