Search Results

1. [2008] NZEmpC CC 5C/08 Vice-Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...the Court seems to have come to expressing a view is an obiter remark in paragraph [2] of the decision in Witcombe where Chief Judge Colgan described the proceedings as being an application for special leave under s178(3) “… as the statute permits in addition to an appeal …”. [13] As a matter of principle, it is unsatisfactory for there to be two alternative processes available in the Court to address the same issue. Such a situation is even more unsatisfactory where those...

2. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC rebuttal Stephen Brown [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...public car park and adjoining village / mixed use precinct within the Matiatia (Gateway) Land Unit. Of note, that land unit sets out to accommodate future development up to either 8m or 13m in height (nearly three storeys to five storeys) and Permitted Activities that include hostels, community 31555466:629148 5 facilities, cafes, restaurants and residential development. I agree with Mr Scott that such development potential needs to be acknowledged in looking at the Appli...

3. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML evidence chief Steven James [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...Initial discussions with AT staff have indicated that the bore supplying the 11 ‘old wharf’ does not have the capacity to handle the additional water requirements of the proposed marina. 53. Investigations indicate that the water permit (No. 28671) for the bore, which supplies the ‘new wharf’ (known as the Harbourmasters bore), was obtained by Waitemata Infrastructure Ltd (WIL) to supply a proposed mixed use development. This development has not proceeded...

4. [2017] NZEmpC 102 Kaipara District Council v McKerchar [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...succeeded in striking out the claim brought by the other, the primary application was Mr McKerchar’s application to strike out the Council’s claims. I also consider that there was a sufficiently clear delineation in the two applications as to permit an issue by issue analysis. To rule that costs should lie where they fall would mean that the 18 Discussed at [22] – [28]. Council would avoid a costs liability which it...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 135 Bunnings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.7 MB]

   ...intermediary or intervening factor [ .. . ]2 by a direct route [ ... ] ( t,_ . , / P -/ ;;r. -, ": ) IV ' .. :; . . ' The use of the term "directly" in section 308B is intended to reduce the sets of effects which permits participation by a trade competitor. Obviously "indirect" effects are excluded, and so too would be "consequential" effects. [54] HJSL's submission in opposition to Bunnings' application alleged that t...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 3 Association of Professional & Executive Employees Inc v NZ District Health Board [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...which enables an effective contingency plan to be put in place even in the absence of such prior agreement. To achieve that end, the scope of negotiations under cl 12(5) and the jurisdiction of the adjudicator under cl 13 must be wide enough to permit the parties to agree, or the adjudicator to determine, all issues relating to the provision of life preserving services necessary to make the employer’s contingency plan effective. But the interpretation of those provisions should...

7. Walker - Kourateuwhi 2E1A1 (2016) 57 Tairawhiti MB 157 (57 TRW 157) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...land (namely the one rood) without granting a partition order. It only had jurisdiction to vest shares. The letter suggested a number of ways in which the Court could rectify the matter, including an order under s 60 of the 1953 Act. Section 60 permitted amendments to orders to give effect to the true intention of the Court. [8] To complicate matters further, the Māori Trustee advised that he had just become aware that George Walker (one of the beneficiaries of the will of Rehia...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 149 NZ Education Institute Te Riu Roa v Secretary for Education [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...that there is a difference between “closest to” and “on”. [46] I do not accept this submission for several reasons. First, the parties did not qualify the parenthesised phrase by stating that a commencement date of 1 February was not permitted. It is reasonable to conclude that had the parties considered that 1 February itself should be excluded, they would have said so in their agreement. [47] Second, this conclusion is reinforced by the context within which the ann...

9. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...Morars' tenant made or caused the repairs to be made. The Morars did not pay for any repairs. No inspection of the repair was undertaken by or for the Morars. Ms Johnson gave uncontested evidence as to the extent of the repair and the need for a permit or building consent as it involved repair to ply substrate and the application of the liquid applied membrane to the garage floor. [115] The Morars say that they have never undertaken any repairs personally as they purchase...

10. LCDT Annual Report 2021 [pdf, 531 KB]

    ...(of a procedural nature) can be considered by the Chair alone, and some of which require the convening of the full, or reduced number Tribunal. A reduced quorum, consisting of three members (Chair, one lay member and one lawyer member), is permitted under the Act to consider applications for Interim Suppression of Name and for Interim Suspension Orders. These provisions allow speedier consideration of such applications at a considerably reduced cost. At times, in order to a...