Search Results

1. [2020] NZEnvC 179 Northland Regional Council v Glamuzina.pdf [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...22 June 2002, 31 August 2020, 3 September 2020 ; 9 September 2020, 17 September 2020, 18 September 2020, 19 September 2020, 25 September 2020 and 4 October 2020.3 (b) The outdoor burning at the Property does not comply with condition 1) of permitted activity rule C.7.1.1, and Rule C.7.1.9 requires resource consent to undertake the activity. (c) The Council has not granted a resource consent; and the burning at the Property is in contravention of section 15(2A) of the RMA....

2. C v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...was conducted in Toia v Corrections (Jurisdiction) [2018] NZHRRT 46. Sections 82 and 83 set out the circumstances in which proceedings under the Privacy Act can be brought in the Tribunal. Their effect is that proceedings before the Tribunal are permitted only where an investigation by the Commissioner has been conducted under Part 8, or where conciliation (under s 74) has not resulted in settlement: Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZ...

3. Keven Investments Limited v Arthur [2011] NZWHT Auckland 45 [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...THE VENDOR WARRANTY AS SET OUT IN CLAUSE 6.2(5) OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE? [27] Keven submits that Mr and Mrs Montgomery and Mr Bramwell breached clause 6.2 of the sale and purchase agreement because Mr Montgomery caused or permitted work to be done on the property for which a building consent was required by law. Mr Shand submitted that Mr and Mrs Montgomery and Mr Bramwell were in breach of the warranty if it was established that at the date of giving of pos...

4. [2007] NZEmpC AC 25/07 Woud v Department of Corrections [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...recall or on application under the slip rule had been filed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances she submitted that it cannot be correct, as a matter of law, that a party dissatisfied with what a judgment clearly provides may be permitted to trawl through the judgment in the hopes of finding evidence that will improve his position. She submitted that in practical terms, if the parties are permitted to have another attempt at persuading a different Judge as to what th...

5. [2008] NZEmpC AC 17A/08 Air Nelson Ltd v NZ Airline Pilots Association IUOW Inc and anor [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...airline pilots … [12] Put simply, the strike action is in the nature of, but not precisely, a work to rule. Pilots will follow instrument procedures for many landings and takeoffs, rather than visual procedures. Both sorts of procedures are permitted in many, but not all, circumstances. They are followed by pilots on a case by case basis depending on contingencies including, but not limited to, civil aviation directives, visibility, weather and other traffic. Instrument takeoff...

6. [2021] NZIACDT - 12 EM v Yong (3 June 2021) [pdf, 164 KB]

   IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2021] NZIACDT 12 Reference No: IACDT 05/20 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY THE REGISTRAR OF IMMIGRATION ADVISERS Registrar BETWEEN EM Complainant AND CHEE SENG MICHAEL YONG Adviser SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION ORDER DECISION Dated 3 June 2021 REPRESENTATION: Registrar:

7. 2021-12-17 RPW Chapter 7 with proposed amendments PC8 - track changed version [pdf, 430 KB]

   ...techniques to trap debris, sediments and nutrients present in runoff. Part A: Discharge policies W A T E R Q U A L I T Y Regional Plan: Water for Otago, updated to 1 May 2014 7-7 Explanation In terms of the Plan’s rules for permitted and discretionary activities for new discharges, or extensions to the catchment area of existing discharges from reticulated stormwater systems, the requirements of (a) to (c) will apply, as required. Principal reasons for adopting...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 233 Wellington Regional Council v Crosbie [pdf, 489 KB]

   ...disposal system and field). Requiring compliance 1JJith the resource consent: s 314(/)(b) 29. As analysed above, the unchallenged evidence of ,vitnesses of the Council and the third respondent is that the first and second respondent have damaged, or permitted damage to be done to disposal field infrastructure, resulting in the disposal field breaching its resource consent conditions. 15 30. Attempts to repair the disposal field have subsequently been frustrated and delayed by...

9. Carey Clan Trust v Still [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...failure to act, and determine the claim based on the available information. This section is invoked and applies to both Mr and Mrs 11 Still. They were aware of the claims against them. Mrs Still was a joint applicant for the building permit. Being a family home and not a commercial development, the inference is drawn that she would have had input and involvement in the building project that took place over a number of years. The Tribunal draws the inference she was a co-...

10. Pue v Tapatu - Okawa A1B (2011) 268 Aotea MB 93 (268 AOT 93) [pdf, 165 KB]

    ...the majority owners of Okawa A1B. They seek an injunction against the Respondents on the basis of an alleged actual trespass by way of encroachment over the land. In particular, the Applicant claims that the Respondents have illegally erected, permitted to be erected and maintained on the land structures and trees including fences, a lean-to, out-houses and a water and septic system. All of which the trustees say prevent them and the beneficiaries of their trust from quiet and pe...