Search Results

1. Edinburgh Realty Ltd & Ors v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 16 [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...appropriate weight to the qualification that any regulation of procedure by the CAC is authorised “as long as it is consistent with this Act and any regulations made under it”. 2.5 As stated above section 94 of the Act is mandatory and does not permit a CAC to make separate determinations on liability and penalty. It is not 5 therefore open to the CAC to now make a further and separate determination on the issue of penalty. It is also not open to the CAC to maintain that...

2. [2022] NZEnvC 110 Lang v Buller District Council [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...northern property boundary (the point at which Condition 16.9 also requires the temporary noise bund to be constructed): o Mining activities must only occur between the hours of 0800-2200 Monday to Friday and 0800-1800 Saturday . o Mining is not permitted to occur on Sundays for the period when mining is occurring within 80m of the northern property boundary. Advice Note: Condition 11.2 only applies if a dwelling is constructed and a Certificate of Code Compliance has been i...

3. [2021] NZSSAA 1 (14 January 2021) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...changed the debtor’s position in the belief that the debtor was entitled to that sum and would not have to pay or repay that sum to MSD; and (b) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. (2) In this regulation, error— (a) means— (i) the provision of incorrect information by MSD: (ii) any erroneous act or omission of MSD that occurs during an inquiry under section 298 of the Act: (iii) any other e...

4. 22 January 2017 Housing New Zealand Corporation & Others v Auckland Council [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...9091 Facsimile: (09) 916 9090 http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court EC4180_NoticeOfHearing SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS PAUP - 059/063 - Residential - integrated residential development PAUP - 059/063 - Residential - Permitted threshold PAUP - 059/063 - Residential - Standards (Yards, Fences, Walls) ENV-2016-304-000131 ENV-2016-304-000133 ENV-2017-304-000116 Housing New Zealand Corporation v Auckland Council Vernon v Auckland Council Adams v Au...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 202 Hutchison v Nelson City Council costs [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...not entitled to reimbursement for their own costs, except in exceptional circumstances. 8 This well-established principle includes assistance rendered by immediate family members. 9 [15] However, in this jurisdiction cl 2 of sch 3 to the Act permits representation by persons other than counsel, such as an officer or member of a union, or an agent. [16] In Murphy & Routhan (t/a Enzo’s Pizza) v Van Beek, Chief Judge Goddard said: 10 ... costs are not normally awarded to...

6. Fair Pay Agreements Bill [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...investigation or detection of offences.20 Where a certificate of exemption has been issued, access to the workplace may be denied on religious grounds.21 The Bill provides that every person is liable to a penalty who, without lawful excuse, refuses to permit a union representative to enter a workplace, obstructs entry to the workplace, or wilfully fails to comply with conditions relating to access.22 39. The Bill also gives new powers to Labour Inspectors.23 For the purpose of deter...

7. G Eckhoff - SoE - 21 April 2021.pdf [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...lasting progress thru a democratic process which the Minister Parker and former chair Hobbs have completely undermined - in my view. Was this collusion or merely cooperation to force plan change] through I think is a fair question . Clearly a 6 years permit to take water is the default position of government It is my further belief PC7 is the stalking horse, designed to undermine the process of investment in water infrastructure??. It really is unbelievable that Government places the...

8. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...case concerns a leaky house as a result of defective plastering and high ground levels. The vendors gave warranties which were breached. The level of supervision of the building was inadequate. The plans were adequate for consent purposes and to permit competent tradespeople to erect a weathertight dwelling. HISTORY OF HOUSE [2] Michael Pearson and Karen Tucker owned a section and wished to build a house on it. They approached Barrakuda Design to prepare plans and specific...

9. FD v B Ltd [2021] NZDT 1714 (23 December 2021) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...impose the cost on FD. FD objected to this and refused to pay it. 19. US of B Ltd said she relied upon the terms on the basis of advice she received from her debt collection company and her lawyer. She decided, following that advice, that clause 4 permitted her to include the increased cost of the contract as an error or omission, which meant that the client (FD) had, in effect, permitted such an error or omission to be a matter that could be corrected. 20. I am unable to agree w...

10. SW v UH LCRO 170/2014 (5 February 2016) [pdf, 48 KB]

    ...decision on 16 July 2014. [12] Mr SW submits that: (a) Ms UH had played a part in the preparation of Ms CR’s letter. (b) Ms UH should have required Ms CR to seek independent advice before providing correspondence to the Court. (c) Ms UH had permitted a serious defamation to be promulgated. (d) Ms UH has not sought to withdraw the affidavit, or redact the offending statements from the affidavit. (e) He had been required to file an affidavit in the Family Court as a consequenc...