Search Results

1. Trustpower S Styles Supplementary evidence on pRPS 21 July 2021 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...conditions and come at a considerable financial cost for consenting. 3 minimising adverse effects9. In my opinion, PC7 as notified does not achieve this policy as it treats hydro-electricity generation activities the same as all deemed permits and thus does not provide for continued operation in any considered or deliberate way (this is also the case for Mr de Pelsemaeker’s primary recommendations in his evidence in reply10 with respect to consent duration). Similar...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Ram [2011] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...inter alia, to the following matters; (a) S.9(1) LCA, which provides a statutory misconduct charge where a practitioner provides regulated services to the public while an employee, other than as provided by one of the listed exceptions, or as permitted by S.10(3) LCA.3 (b) Chapter 15 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“CCR”), which notes certain rules applicable to in-house lawyers, including those employed as such, as distinct from a...

3. EI v TB [2020] NZDT 1699 (19 March 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...a median strip for the purposes outlined in Rule 2.7(b), it is not permissible to drive through an intersection from one median strip onto another. [11] I find that the manoeuvre being undertaken by TB at the time the collision occurred was not permitted by Rule 2.7(b) of the RUR as TB had no intention of turning right into another CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 road or vehicle entrance and had not turned right onto the median strip. Furthermore, by his own admiss...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 222 Selwyn Foundation v Nayathodan re-issued [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...assessing whether a decision of the Authority is procedural or not, it is more important to have regard to the effect of the decision rather than the nature of the power being exercised. [11] Despite acknowledging that if the current challenge is permitted to proceed, there may be (potentially) four separate hearings of the case (two in the Authority and two by way of challenge in the Court), the defendant concedes the plaintiff’s right to challenge the Authority’s preliminary d...

5. FFNZ - EiC - R J McDiarmid (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...Water plan review (yet to commence) will require of us, and what that will mean for future consenting. IMPACTS OF REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY ON RURAL COMMUNITIES 26. The provisions of PC 7 Policy 10A.2.1 restricts the reconsenting of water permits to the area of irrigated land that existed at a set period, the season of 2017-2018. This fails to incentivise any future thinking or development like changing irrigation systems from wild flood to spray, which has proven environmenta...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 111 Sawyer v Vice Chancellor, Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...its terms. [7] That determination left for future investigation a claim for penalties as provided for by s 149(4) and s 135 of the Act. [8] Dr Sawyer wants to challenge that 3 March 2017 determination but she did not do so within the time permitted in s 179 of the Act. Consequently, on 30 June 2017, she applied for leave to extend the time within which she could challenge the determination. 4 That application for leave disputes, amongst other things, the validity of the det...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 117 Te Runanga o Kaikoura v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...management units sitting within Te Tai o Marokura which in turn reflects Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996 Section 5. Volume 2, Chapter 16 4. Amend Rule 16.5.2, as follows: [C] 16.5.2 Marine farming in an ASA for which no coastal permit is held using conventional longline structures or intertidal structures, including the associated occupation of space in the coastal marine area, the erection, placement, use of structures, disturbance of the seabed and ancillary d...

8. [2017] NZEnvC 064 Mitchell Family Trust v Point Trust [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...counsel for the Applicants submitted: 4 (a) the application had merit, being more broadly based than in relation to a breach of resource consent conditions, but including an alleged breach of s 16 of the Act in relation to noise and of the permitted activity standards for air discharges in relation to odour; (b) evidence having not been exchanged, it is speculative to say that there would be no evidence, with assertions as to the evidence that could have been produced in refer...

9. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Mr G [2023] NZLCDT 37 (23 August 2023) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...witness summonses pursuant to cl 6 of sch 4, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The issue of those summonses gives effect to an appellate decision of the High Court in this case.1 The summonsed witnesses are not parties to these proceedings. As permitted by cl 6(3)(c), the summonses require the witnesses to bring documents of a nominated class (or classes) to the hearing. [2] This is a vexed case. As the High Court Judge recently observed about the nature and scope of this di...

10. Bradbury v Police (Mootness) [2020] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 161 KB]

    ...least 2016 the Chairperson made submissions to successive Ministers of Justice and Associate Ministers of Justice drawing attention to the magnitude of the delays and the simplicity of the solution, namely the amendment of the Human Rights Act to permit the appointment of deputy chairs to assist with the Tribunal’s workload. The required amendment to the 5 Act was not included in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No. 2) introduced on 24 May 2017. In the absence of legislative int...