Search Results

1. 2022-03-18 Remarkables Park - Legal submissions as to scope [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...residential development”; (c) The opening clause of rule 14.5.1.1 stated: “The use of land, and the associated discharge of sediment into water or onto or into land where it may enter water, for earthworks for residential development is a permitted activity providing:”; and (d) The opening clause of rule 14.5.2.1 stated: “Except as provided by Rule 14.5.1.1, the use of land, and the associated discharge of sediment into water or onto or into land where it may enter water,...

2. ENVC Matiatia expert witness traffic and transport 2014 [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...the peak ferry arrival times, traffic demands for the identified peak marina demand day of operation were conducted; ii. During the off-peak ferry times at Matiatia, the simulated rates were trebled to represent operation where access may only be permitted within a 20 minute window of operation. e. The experts were unable to agree on the extent to which the simulation represents what ~ will happen in practice and this is disc:ssed further in sectiO~ I 'h J ~ ~C'1=====--...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 046 AK Rental and Investments Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 556 KB]

   ...application for a change of consent conditions, or on a review of consent conditions: (a) the applicant or consent holder: (b) any person who made a submission on the application or review of consent conditions. [(c) in relation to a coastal permit for a restricted coastal activity, the l'vlinister of Conservation.] [(1A) However, there is no right of appeal under this section against the whole or any part of a decision of a consent authority referred to in subsection (1) to t...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 114 Air New Zealand v Kerr [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...[2013] NZERA Auckland 241. [3] The plaintiff has not filed a challenge to the Authority’s determination under s 179 of the Act as it is, on the face of the legislation, entitled to do. The first question for decision is whether s 178(5) permits a party to make such an application and, if so, how that is to be dealt with. [4] Challenges to Authority determinations under s 179 are broadly available to parties who are dissatisfied with Authority determinations including a de...

5. BORA Corrections Amendment Bill [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...Rights Act.4 Imaging technology searches and strip searches 16. New ss 91 – 92B in the Bill relate to imaging technology searches. New ss 91 and 92 explicitly add the use of imaging technology, such as X-ray machines, to the types of searches permitted by the principal Act. This technology may be used to search visitors, prisoners, or staff members. 17. New s 92A sets out restrictions in relation to imaging technology searches. The person being searched may be required to remove ou...

6. Faulkner v Hoete - Motiti North C No 1 [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 188 (2017 APPEAL 188) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...that the applicants had been ousted from being able to use part of the block as an airstrip, as provided for in the District Plan. The learned Judge concluded that the applicants were entitled to use part of the block as an airstrip as this was a permitted activity under the plan.1 Appellant’s submissions [5] Mr Sharp submits that the affidavit sought to be filed updates the situation with events that have taken place since the hearing in the Court below regarding ongoing discuss...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 100 Liu v South Pacific Timber (1990) Ltd [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...Costley Judge Ford wrote in relation to the test set out in Pani above: To this extent, the relevant principles are akin to those involved in the consideration of an application to strike out a cause of action. After all, there would be no point in permitting an out of time challenge to proceed if it were only to be later struck out as disclosing no tenable cause of action. [11] It would, however, be so unlikely that a proceeding such as this could be struck out as disclosing no...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 41 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...causes of action go too far and are unsustainable, at least on a challenge. These causes of action appear more to be against the Authority and the way in which it dealt with the case. But if leave is granted and a challenge by hearing de novo is permitted, what the Authority did and how it did so will play little, if any, role in the Employment Court. Criticisms of the Authority such as are set out in the sixth proposed cause of action (breach of natural justice) might be able to...

9. Tupe - Manunui No 1 Fourth Residue (2013) 309 Aotea MB 25 (309 AOT 25) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...It will be a breach even where the profit is made by a third party, including children of the trustee: Willis v Barron. 3 A profit made honestly or dishonestly will still amount to a breach of fiduciary duty. As a fiduciary a trustee cannot permit any conflict between personal interests and the trustee’s duties to the beneficiaries: Boardman v Phipps. 4 Where trustees profit from that role they must then account to the trust for the unauthorised retention of trust capital: in r...

10. DU & HU c/- V Trust v UT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1591 (28 July 2021) [pdf, 105 KB]

    ...Page 2 of 4 5. DU and HU attended today’s hearing at the [City] Court. UT did not attend, but I am satisfied that it was correctly served with the claim and the notice of hearing. This order is based on the evidence and information before me, as permitted by s42(1) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Issues 6. The issues I need to decide are: (a) Are DU and HU entitled to compensation for the cost of repairing the wall? (b) Are DU and HU entitled to compensation for the cos...