Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 194 Connor [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...from ground levels at the frontage of the site) for the duration of the consented development under LUC60415640. The hedge must not be removed without prior approval of the council. Should the existing hedge pose imminent danger to property, human health or it is diseased, then the owner of the site must provide council an arborist assessment to confirm the hedge’s health and relevant risks. The owner 2623861 / 709283 must also provide a suitable replacement front boundary h...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 99 Putaanga v MOVe Freight Ltd [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...said she never understood him to be raising a grievance. Further, she said she was not the person with whom to raise it. She said that if she had understood him to be raising a personal grievance, she would have escalated it to her manager or human resources. [33] MOVe Freight said it was not aware of any grievance at the time. It did not, however, call any witnesses, other than Ms Valdes, who had any direct knowledge of, or involvement in, the events at the time. Mr Shelley, wh...

3. MacKenzie v Christchurch City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 59 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...manager and says he only ever acted on behalf of the company. [22] There is no doubt that Wakefield was the developer. However, it is necessary to make a finding as to whether Mr MacKinnon was a co-developer and whether his actions as the ‘human face’ of Wakefield were the actions of a developer per se. This is important as a developer has a non delegable duty of care.2 A director who is not a developer may still be liable but their negligence must arise from their act...

4. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML evidence chief Donald Prince [pdf, 774 KB]

   ...R11/191, a shell midden exposed by erosion at the southern end of the beach, is the nearest recorded archaeological site to works associated with the marina proposal. 16. A number of submissions have expressed concerns regarding that koiwi tangata (human remains) have been exposed by erosion around the foreshore. Matiatia Bay has a long history of Maori occupation as can be seen by the Bay’s extensive archaeological inventory. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that urup...

5. Alves v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 215 [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...section 20(2)(e) to (h)). Section 25(1)(a)(i) provides that “accident” means a specific event or a series of events, other than a gradual process, that involves the application of a force (including gravity), or resistance, external to the human body. Section 25(3) notes that the fact that a person has suffered a personal injury is not of itself to be construed as an indication or presumption that it was caused by an accident. [35] In Johnston,1 France J stated: [11] It is co...

6. [2020] NZIACDT 38 - ZT v Li (18 September 2020) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...been negligent in missing the deadline and failing to advise the complainant of the need to invest as the deadline approached. There was a high degree of negligence. Her mistake could not be described as mere momentary inadvertence or excusable human error. She had failed to note the criteria set out in the approval in principle letter (sent to her twice), the multiple warnings from Immigration New Zealand and from the complainant’s financial adviser, as well as a query from th...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 194 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...damages in this case. It is not a case which sits in the same league as Taunoa v Attorney-General,31 a judgment referred to by Mr Samuels. That case involved severe mistreatment of prisoners in conditions in breach of, in at least one instance, the human rights protection against disproportionately cruel and degrading treatment.32 [42] While I do not consider this to be an appropriate case in which to make an award of damages, I can discern no good reason why a declaration of brea...

8. 2017 NZSSAA 039 (20 July 2017) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...Mr McKenzie submits that the Order breaches the appellant’s right to freedom from discrimination, affirmed in s 19 of NZBORA and that discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and employment status is prohibited pursuant to s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993. [62] Mr McKenzie submits that the two-stage test for discrimination relevant to s 19 of NZBORA is satisfied because there is differential treatment between groups in comparable situations 14 which has resulted in...

9. Complaint Assessment Committee 403 v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 21 [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...previous disciplinary history, and may therefore be entitled to some reduction in penalty, but submitted that remorse could not be considered as a mitigating factor. While noting that the defendant had entered into a settlement with Ms A through the Human Rights Commission, had made some partial admissions as to his conduct in the course of the present proceeding, and had expressed regret and embarrassment regarding some of his comments, Mr Hodge submitted that the defendant had co...

10. Kennedy v Real Estate Agent Authority (CAC 403) & Lonergan [2016] NZREADT 81 [pdf, 186 KB]

    ...Complaint 1. The second respondent submits that allowing the T’s to have a key is not misconduct but rather a case akin to the decision of Ross v REAA and Nickless [2013] READT 109. In that case an agent was “placed under intense pressure as a human being and sought to smooth the way for a settlement without realising that important issues can unexpectedly surface”. The second respondent submits that this case is similar in that Mr Lonergan was placed under pressure and soug...