Search Results

1. [2017] NZEnvC 174 New Zealand Transport Agency v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 13 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 174 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY (ENV-2016-CHC-27) Appellant AND MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent AND J M &A P LIMITED Applicant Court: Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner K Edmonds Environment Commissioner R Howie Hearing: In Blenheim on 31 May & 1, 2 June 2017 (Final submissi

2. 3-Strikes-Proactive-Release-OIA-Requests_Final_Part2.pdf [pdf, 19 MB]

   ...(SOU) 10 April  Cabinet 15 April The remainder of the timing is unchanged, with LEG on 20 June, Cabinet on 24 June, and tabling the Bill from 25 June. Update on recommendations: We have removed the minor/technical recommendation relating to section 106 discharge without conviction – we will revisit this if the new qualifying sentence is not agreed. Next steps: 56 s9(2)(g)(i) Page 116 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82...

3. [2020] NZEnvC 155 Wilkins Farming Co Ltd v Southland Regional Council.pdf [pdf, 6.9 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I MUA I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Kl OTAUTAHI IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2020] NZEnvC 155 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under section 120 of the Act WILKINS FARMING CO LIMITED (ENV-2018-AKL-380) Appellant SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J E Borthwick Environment Commissioner M C G Mabin Environment Commissioner A P Gysberts Hearing: at lnvercargill on

4. Tarawa - Estate of Tau Pere Pokaihau [2018] Chief Judge's MB 890 (2018 CJ 890) [pdf, 378 KB]

   2018 Chief Judge’s MB 890 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20130006772 CJ 2013/40 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Tau Pere Pokaihau also known as Tau Pera Rogers AND MAHUE TARAWA Applicant Hearing: 19 September 2018, 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 668 - 688 (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 21 December 2018 RESERVED DECISION OF DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE C L FOX

5. Tsai Mao TRI 2016-100-00010 [2018] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 491 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2016-100-00010 [2018] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 BETWEEN PHORINA CHIEH-HSIN TSAI AND FERGUS TI-WEN MAO First Claimants AND UPPER HUTT CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND MICHAEL ANTHONY BARROTT Second Respondent AND MICHAEL DANIEL KEANE (REMOVED) Third Respondent AND PANELCRETE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 40222) (REMOVED) Fourth Respondent AND PHILLIP ERIC GORRIE AND ROBYN JUNE BOND Fifth Respondent A

6. [2013] NZEmpC 39 Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...grievance justification test under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, as it applied before that date, was used by the Authority. This case being a challenge to its determination (albeit now directed to be heard de novo), that former section applies. In shorthand, this is what is known as the “would” test version of s 103A. Relevant facts [5] Mr Rittson-Thomas owns a Hawke’s Bay farm known as Totara Hills Farm. This operates as two separate units although some fu...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 66 Smartlift Systems Ltd v Armstrong [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...evidence it heard. Those findings were also correct on the basis of the more thorough evidence provided to the Court. [91] I dismiss this aspect of the challenge. Second issue: did the Authority err with regard to s 103A(5) of the Act? [92] Section 103A(5) provides: ... (5) The Authority or the court must not determine a dismissal or an action to be unjustifiable under this section solely because of defects in the process followed by the employer if the defects were— (a...

8. LCRO 175/2020 PM obo MNO Limited v FS and BL (22 April 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 053 Ref: LCRO 175/2020 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN PM on behalf of [MNO LIMITED] Applicant AND FS and BL Respondents DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Int...

9. LCRO 45/2020 MN v RK (22 December 2020) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...to the complaint reflects, is that he had given insufficient thought and attention to ensuring that he had a secure foundation for argument that he had a caveatable interest. [127] The potential for a caveat to cause inconvenience is obvious. [128] The reason why Mr MN took the step he did was to assert leverage for payment of his fee. [129] An unsecured personal debt (as I consider Mr MN’s debt was) will not support a caveat. [130] It is argued for Mr MN that the sale was not...

10. Wirihana-Tawake v Kauika-Stevens - Rangitatau 1D5A1 Takirau Marae (2021) 434 Aotea MB 114 (434 AOT 114) [pdf, 313 KB]

    434 Aotea MB 114 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District A20210002425 WĀHANGA Under Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Rangitatau 1D5A1 Reserve (Tākirau Marae) I WAENGA I A Between SCOTT AARON BRUCE WIRIHANA- TAKAWE Te Kaitono Applicant CLARK KAUIKA-STEVENS Te Kaiurupare Respondent Nohoanga:...