Search Results

1. ENV-2016-AKL-000204 Davies Kahlberg Family Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...Council will give specific consideration to those persons listed in Rule C1.13(4). E39.6. Standards Subdivision listed in Tables E39.4.1 to E39.4.5 must comply with the relevant standards in E39.6.1 General standards, and the relevant standards for permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary and discretionary activities in E39.6.2 to E39.6.5. General standards E39.6.1. Specified building area E39.6.1.1. (1) A specified building area must be clearly identified on every site...

2. LCRO 63/2020 SJ - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (28 September 2020) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...the preliminary screening and to present the cases, and that the decisions that count are made on the basis of the trial” [authorities cited omitted] There is a strong pragmatic argument that the disciplinary process should not be prolonged by permitting a review of a decision to prosecute. Any arguments that the decision to prosecute is ill founded can of course be properly raised before the Tribunal itself…. [23] The Committee has before it, a comprehensive report which identi...

3. Dovey Property Holdings Limited – Orokawa 3B Part Lot 8 DP41892 (2013) 57 Taitokerau MB 75 (57 TTK 75) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...injustice that would otherwise occur due to the way in which the discontinuing party has conducted the proceedings to that point — for example, by obtaining an order for an interim injunction. In such circumstances, the discontinuance may not be permitted at all, or only be permitted on certain conditions. Discussion [15] My concern in relation to the applican’s withdrawal of the application was that it may leave matters unresolved for the purposes of Mrs Regeling’s estate...

4. LCRO 46/2017 DL v SC (18 May 2017) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...practically able to take responsibility. 3 [11] Mr DL says it is not correct for the Committee to have recorded that he conducted proceedings for Mr MP, when Ms RS was instructing solicitor. He says he did not knowingly employ Mr MP, or permit him to act as a clerk or otherwise, in breach of s 7 of the Act. Mr DL says it was simply not his function or authority to have any dealings with Mr MP in relation to input with any document created in the proceeding, and he exercised...

5. Smith v The Proprietors of Mangaroa and other blocks (2015) 113 Waiariki MB 1 (113 WAR 1) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...counsel. Furthermore the defences raised on their behalf were virtually identical. [9] The respondents submitted that costs should be awarded on a level comparable to a 3B basis according to the District Court Rules 2014. Category 3 proceedings permit a daily recovery rate of $2,300 per day, which is the highest recovery rate allowed for under those rules. Category 3 proceedings are classified according to rule 14.3 of the District Court Rules 2014 as being: Proceedings that b...

6. 2017 NZSSAA 057 (10 October 2017) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...her position in the belief that he or she was entitled to that sum and would not have to pay or repay that sum for the chief executive; and (b) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [26] That is the crux of the appellant’s case. [27] The appellant is a paediatric nurse. Obviously, he is a highly skilled professional who is able to assimilate and process information, including 7 measurem...

7. 2017 NZSSAA 053 (4 October 2017) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...supported living payment from the Ministry. [2] The appellant first came to New Zealand on XX September 2002 on a business visa. During varying periods down to 10 January 2013, the appellant spent time in New Zealand. Some of the time she had a permit and for some of the time she was in New Zealand unlawfully without a valid 2 visa. During the period of time down to 10 January 2013, she only held temporary visas. On 10 January 2013, she lodged an appeal with the Immigra...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 8 Q v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...in the evidence whose circumstances would be considered as evidence of alleged disparity of treatment by the defendant. [29] The principles relating to the making of orders for non-publication are well known. Clause 12(1) of Sch 3 of the Act permits orders of non-publication by the Court, and the applicable principles were recently considered by this Court in both the interlocutory and substantive judgments of H v A Limited. 14 [30] As I stated in that case: 15 The principl...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 143 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 316 KB]

   ...Act 2000, ss 114(4) and 115(b). when the issues arising in one of the challenges to be heard were before the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority). Discussion [31] Mr Lorigan’s contention that the defendant should not be permitted to call its intended witnesses confuses an issue of admissibility with an issue of credibility. [32] Where it can be established that a witness had been involved in criminal activity, it does not follow that the witness should be au...

10. BORA Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 325 KB]

    ...expression. Freedom of expression includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. Prisoners' Mail 7. Clause 14 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 107(1) of the Act. New section 107(1) permits an authorised officer to read correspondence between a prisoner and another person for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be withheld under section 108(1). Currently, section 107(1) authorises only the prison manager to read pris...