Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Cox [2015] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...the basis of admitted unsatisfactory conduct by the practitioner. The applicant and the practitioner through his counsel have agreed on a suggested penalty. [15] The Tribunal has been asked to approve the proposed resolution and penalty and to permit withdrawal of the other charges. [16] The Tribunal, having considered the papers, held some concerns about the practitioner’s conduct which gave it concern as to whether or not it should accept the proposed resolution of the charge...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 017 OneFortyOne New Zealand Ltd v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...Effects of sedimentation , including those likely to arise from harvesting , and measures proposed to avoid or mitigate these effects . [R, D] 4.5.3. Plantation forestry afforestation, or plantation forestry replanting that is not provided for as a Permitted Activity or a Controlled Activity. Matters over which the Council has restricted its discretion: Effects on Significant Wetlands. Effects of sedimentation. The effects on the values of the Marlborough Sounds High Amenity La...

3. National and Auckland Standards Committees v Orlov [2012] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...general approach that judicial disqualification is not warranted on the basis of adverse rulings or decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a Judge’s ruling.” 4 Siemer v Heron, above n 1. 5 Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2007] 3 NZLR 495....

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Smith Charges [2015] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...beneficial ownership, this Order (made in May 2013) is a “red herring” for the purposes of these charges. [10] The order was later referred to by Her Honour as “unhappily worded” and she affirmed that the orders could “...go no further than is permitted by Part 17 of the High Court Rules. Those rules make it clear that any such order can be made only in relation to property in which Mr M personally has an interest”. Thus the Judge confirmed that, in the absence of a be...

5. [2016] NZSSAA 112 (22 December 2016) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...putting her into further hardship if assistance was granted and approved. Case for the appellant [6] Mr Ellis, the advocate for the appellant asked that payment should be ordered under the Recoverable Assistance Programme to the extent that this was permitted and that the balance of the outstanding rent be made available as an advance payment of benefit. [7] Ms XXXX, who appeared partway through the hearing, gave helpful evidence outlining her position. She has a five year old ch...

6. Chief Justice Media Statement COVID-19 Alert Levels 3 and 4 21 08 27 [pdf, 533 KB]

   ...registry will facilitate remote access. Appearances in person should only happen in exceptional circumstances. Members of the public (including a whānau support person or persons for a defendant) whose presence is not required at court will not be permitted to enter unless granted permission by the presiding judge. Masks are to be worn at all times within the courthouse, unless permission is given by a judge. Public counters are closed at Alert Level 4, and all documents can be fi...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 024 Friends of Conical Hill v Hurunui District Council [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...covenant over rough gecko habitat on (a) (b) (c) 5 private land. [7] The disclosure of information relevant to the QEII covenant has already occurred with the Lizard Management Plan and documents pertaining to the applicant’s Wildlife Permit being disclosed to counsel for Friends of Conical Hill and Dr Ogilvie. The court has been advised that this information was subject to an undertaking to maintain confidentiality and was also redacted, but there is concern informat...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 53 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. Mr Halse also says that the proceedings he is attempting to judicially review amount to SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) litigation against him and that the courts should not be permitting it. [10] Ms Taylor, counsel for the Authority, filed a memorandum (dated 23 November 2022) in response to the application and appeared for the purposes of providing 3 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [2023] NZEmpC 38. Those...

9. DML v Montgomery (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...effect on the plaintiff in the course of her employment. [155.2] An order is made under s 92I(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1993 restraining the defendants from continuing or repeating the breach of s 62 of the Act, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the breach. [155.3] An order is made under s 92I(3)(f) of the Human Rights Act 1993 that the first and second defendants, in conjunction with the Human Rights Com...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Salter [2015] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 419 KB]

    ...certificate. He did engage Ms C L in her capacity as a Trust Account Supervisor as an employee of Salta Property Law to conduct transactions through the trust account of another practice. He says that he has now realised that such a course was not permitted for an incorporated firm being in breach of s 110(2) of the Act; (b) His conduct did not cause a problem for the public; (c) The monies had been under control and there was no dishonesty on his part; (d) Since February 2014...