Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 138 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...Appeal.13 The appeal was abandoned when amending legislation was introduced, providing that compliance with the principles of natural justice did not require the Authority to allow cross-examination but it could, itself, in its absolute discretion, permit cross- examination.14 [17] David is one of two cases which deal with the availability of judicial review for breach of natural justice in the Authority (as opposed to the Employment Court). Metargem v Employment Relations Aut...

2. 2022-04-29 ORC PC1 - [2022] NZEnvC 69 - Scope Decision on Landfills [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...greenwaste landfills, if new applications for resource consents are lodged. [43] New Policy 7.4.11 would not apply to existing landfills operating under an existing resource consent, unless a change in the operation of that landfill meant a relevant permitted activity rule could not be complied with.47 [44] Ms Lee disagrees that the purpose of PC1 is not explicit and refers to the affidavit filed in support of the provisions agreed at mediation, which includes further detail of...

3. [2022] NZACC 92 - Carey v ACC (18 May 2022) [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...stated: [21] … the task which the lower Court is engaged upon is the application of the law to the facts before it in the individual case. It involves a question of law only when the law requires that a certain answer be given because the facts permit only one answer. Where a decision either way is fairly open, depending on the view taken, it is treated as a decision of fact, able to be impugned only if in the process of determination the decision-maker misdirects itself in law....

4. Macdonald v Accident Compensation Corporation (Further ruling on application to recall judgment) [2024] NZACC 29 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...an exceptional procedure. 6 R v Nahkla (No. 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 453 at 456. 7 Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZCA 145 at [9]. [30] He submits that Ms Koloni’s contentions about running out of time or not being permitted to speak to some presentation are without an objectively valid basis and absent proper context. [31] He notes that no Court is required to allow unlimited time for submissions; still less on appeal, or about matters properly irrelev...

5. 2024-NZEnvC-016-Director-General-of-Conservation-v-Northland-Regional-Council.pdf [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...the appeal. Thus, as noted earlier, Te Make and Te Rarawa now utilise around 1.6Mm3 per annum. We accept that this is a significant increase in the extraction from the aquifer. However, the previous maximum extraction volume of 2.3Mm3 was permitted for a considerable period and it is within the Northland Regional Plan allocation limit for the subzone. The question needs to be decided whether we can vary the Stage 1 limits within the scope of the appeal. Balance of appeal i...

6. Moeahu v Winitana - Waiwhetu Pa No 4 (2014) 319 Aotea MB 166 (319 AOT 166) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...310 Aotea MB 172-190 (310 AOT 172-190) 319 Aotea MB 170 Mr Winitana’s submissions [12] Mr Winitana contends that there have been no claims that he has personally profited from the transactions in question, merely that he was not expressly permitted by the Trust to make payments to his company, Ngamoko Energy Limited (“Ngamoko”). [13] Mr Winitana states that it is evident that there were widespread failures in the operation of the Trust, given that there is no trust order a...

7. HP v ST LCRO 292/2012 (20 January 2015) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...Responsibility and the Lawyer. He says:9 When a lawyer seeks to terminate the lawyer-client relationship a good reason for doing so must exist. Moreover, if the retainer’s termination would cause considerable prejudice to the client, termination is not permitted. That the lawyer has undertaken too much work is not a justification for terminating the retainer once accepted, although it would have been a ground for declining it in the first place. Similarly, the fact a client is di...

8. CH v DX LCRO 296 / 2012 (10 October 2013) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...4 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008. 5 Above n4. 4 of the Committee to seek Board approval after issuing its determination is not permitted by the words of the Regulation. [19] Because of the view that I have taken in this review, it is not necessary for me to determine those issues here. They will be dealt with either in communications between this Office and the Com

9. Te Runanga o Ngati Hine v Te Runanga a iwi o Ngapuhi [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 89 (2013 APPEAL 89) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...fisheries as “… the tentacles of the 2004 Act do not reach beyond” these. He acknowledged that the TRAION deed of trust, Schedule 3, provided for “withdrawal” by Ngāti Hine for fisheries purposes only. Even if it were interpreted as permitting “withdrawal” for all purposes, Judge Ambler considered he did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Tūhoronuku proposal. [14] In respect of the latter, he considered that ss 26C of the 1993 Act and ss 183 and 187 of the 2004 A...

10. [2020] NZEnvC 174 Hamilton City Council v Global Metal Solutions Limited.pdf [pdf, 3.7 MB]

    ...unjust effect. The extent to which the impact of immediate enforcement order would be unjust on the respondent depends on the circumstances and needs to be assessed separately in each case (AMP v Gun Sam Pty Limited (supra)). 4. The wide discretion permits the Court to soften, according to the justice of a particular circumstances, the application of rules, which though right in the general may produce an unjust result in the particular case (Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic; 100 AMP v...