Search Results

1. Clark v Trustees of Opehuia Whānau Trust - Kapenga A No 5 [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 361 (2019 APPEAL 361) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...the appellants, the trustees of the Opehuia Whanau Trust, and the trustees of the Parekarangi Trust. 2. In summary, the parties agree that the land be partitioned to allow the appellants to retain their land interests as taonga tuku iho whilst permitting the beneficiaries of the Opehuia Whanau Trust to exercise their right of sale. 3. The trustees of Parekarangi Trust have agreed to meet the costs of partition up to a limit of $25,000.00 inclusive of GST. 4. In considerat...

2. [2018] NZEnvC 249 Dixon & Dixon v Tasman District Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...outside the Mussel Inn, particularly on nights when advertised events are held. The highway is a 100 kmlhr zone. Patron numbers attending these events have also been raised as an issue with allegations that there have been breaches of the 50 patrons permitted under the resource consent T2/9/9226 and subsequent variation RM141096. [3] Meetings have previously been held between the applicants, the Council , the New Zealand Transport Agency ("NZTA") and the Police in an attem...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 046 Braeburn Property Limited v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...conditions will reduce the current visual amenity and landscape effects of the container stacks on the Site. Visual amenity and landscape effects are those the evidence identifies as being of concern. [14] I am satisfied, that the effects of permitting stacks of containers greater than 11m to remain on the Site (with reduced heights in the more sensitive locations) will be acceptable on a temporary basis. [15] I am also satisfied that requiring the appellants to comply with the...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 109 Jackson v The Aorere College Board of Trustees [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...As the Act makes clear, there is a strong statutory imperative of dealing with problems at an early stage, supporting successful employment relationships where possible.5 The further along the time continuum an employment problem or dispute is permitted to travel, the less likely the statutory objective will be met. [14] It will be apparent that I do not see s 178(2)(b) as necessarily limited to matters which are urgent from the outset. Rather, urgency can build over time, requi...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 138 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...be set aside. While this case concerns a subpoena under the High Court Rules 2016, the principles are applicable by analogy. See also Re Golightly [1974] 2 NZLR 297 (SC) at 301. 7 Auckland Council v George, above n 4, at [17]–[18]. permitted by the Court for good reason, largely to do with the broader administration of justice.8 [13] I directed that Mr AlKazaz set out in his notice of opposition what evidence he expected each of the seven witnesses to give and what re...

6. H v E [2016] NZIACDT 64 (30 September 2016) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...complainant, and filed a form with Immigration New Zealand noting he was now the adviser. [21] On 5 September 2015, Immigration New Zealand raised the issue that the complainant had incorrectly declared that she had never “been refused a visa/permit for any country including New Zealand”. Mr E responded with a statutory declaration and an email, saying that: [21.1] the former adviser made a mistake, and the complainant accepts responsibility; and [21.2] she made a mistake while...

7. [2021] NZIACDT 19 ZK v Registrar (20 August 2021) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...qualified for residence and “he didn’t mention any risks”. [60] On 11 June 2021, an investigator from the Authority rang the adviser and informed him that he had found instances of the unlicensed Ms X giving immigration advice, which was not permitted. There was a discussion about what was permitted. The investigator stated that this was a matter being brought to the adviser’s attention. Registrar’s decision [61] The Registrar wrote to the appellant on 11 June 2021...

8. LCRO 151/2016 and 157/2016 NS v TD and TD v NS (27 September 2018) [pdf, 325 KB]

   LCRO 151/2016 LCRO 157/2016 CONCERNING applications for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING A determination of the [Area] Standards Committee BETWEEN NS Applicant AND AND BETWEEN AND TD Respondent TD Applicant NS Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] These reviews ari

9. 17 July 2020 - Sidwell v Thames-Coromandel District Council [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...people coming to court. Entry continues to be limited to one person at a time at the doorway, maintaining physical distancing. Members of public (including whānau or other support person) whose presence is not required at court will not be permitted to enter unless granted permission from the presiding judge. Such permission should be sought in the first instance by e-mail to the registrar in advance (if granted this must be supplied to the Court Security Officer at the...

10. Morgan v ACC [2011] NZACA 2 [pdf, 188 KB]

    ...first, this ground is a question of fact and not law. In order for leave to be granted the appellant must show this is a mixed question of fact and law. In particular, it must be shown that there was no real evidence before the Appeal Authority to permit it to arrive at its determination. The appellant cannot discharge this burden. [27] Secondly, as the Appeal Authority held, the late review (brought 33 years out of 8 Determination [28] The application for leave to apply to th...