Search Results

1. BS Ltd v UN [2024] NZDT 164 (11 April 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...provisions: a. HX’s liability is limited to the repair, replacement or refund of the price of goods and that HX is not liable for any other loss, injury or damage; and b. “without limiting cause, any liability HX may have in respect of goods or services supplied to you shall nevertheless be limited to the price of the goods or services under the relevant invoice.” 40. The first provision is easily understood. It simply limits HX’s liability to remediation of the defectiv...

2. [2022] NZEnvC 177 Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency v Auckland Council [pdf, 420 KB]

   ...THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2022] NZEnvC 177 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN WAKA KOTAHI NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY (ENV-2022-AKL-000100) Appellant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent AND KARAKA AND DRURY LIMITED Applicant Court: Environment Judge J A Smith sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Date of Order: 27 Sep...

3. Management Committee of Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks Incorporation - Lot 1 DPS 65413 and Part Mangatawa Papamoa SO 452445 (2018) 156 Waikato Maniapoto MB 77 (156 WMN 77) [pdf, 732 KB]

   156 Waikato Maniapoto MB 77 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20170005270 A20170005272 A20170005273 UNDER Sections 133, 135, 137, 289 and 315, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Lot 1 DPS 65413 and Part Mangatawa Papamoa SO 452445 block MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF MANGATAWA PAPAMOA BLOCKS INCORPORATION Applicant A20170005738 A20170005739 A20170005740 A20170005741 UNDER Sections

4. [2018] NZEnvC 030 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 7.4 MB]

   ...declaration'). In our second interim decision of 23 January 2018 ('Second Decision'),2 the court noted some drafting infelicities in the wording of the finally postulated declaration. We proposed for consideration alternative wording to address these concerns and invited further submissions. [2] To recap, the finally postulated declaration would relevantly have read: Where a proposed activity is on a site located within both the Residential - Single House zone (&quo...

5. Auckland District Law Society v Dorbu [2010] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...six we found: “Clearly this is a particularly insulting attack on fellow practitioners and once again we find the breach of the rule proved to the relevant standard.” • We found in relation to charge seven: “That Mr Dorbu well knew the address for service given by Mr Barge was the offices of Castle Brown, thus he has misled the Court in that respect in paragraph 3 of his affidavit.” • In respect of charge eight: “We consider that this behaviour constituted an unjus...

6. Ryang v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 21 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...The exterior walls are clad in an EIFS cladding directly fixed without a cavity. The flat or near flat roofs at levels 3 and 2 and over the entrance are clad in butynol rubber. [10] Mrs Ryang and her husband are Korean. They have lived in New Zealand for ten years although they were absent from New Zealand between 2004 and 2007 for lengthy periods. They have purchased a number of properties in Korea. [11] In late 2007 Mrs Ryang decided that they should purchase a home i...

7. Heta v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...66(1)(b)(i) or (ii). See the Minute issued by the Chairperson on 21 February 2012. [5] The issue in these proceedings is whether Ms Heta has established an interference with her privacy as alleged and emotional harm in the sense described. We intend addressing separately the two complaints as they are distinct from each other, although arising out of the same fraud investigation. There are two preliminary points. The delay in hearing the case [6] The statement of claim was filed by...

8. CAC 10031 v Lum-On [2012] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...outside the jurisdiction of the 1976 Act are also outside the jurisdiction of s 172 (Step 1); (b) only orders which could be made under the 1976 Act may be made under s 172 (Step 3). [27] Each of the three steps, as they apply to this case, will be addressed in turn. 9 Step 1 – Could have been complained about or charged under 1976 Act [28] Under rule 16.2 of the Rules of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Incorporated (“REINZ Rules”), made under s 70 of the 1976 Ac...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 174 Workforce Development Ltd v Hill [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...their job. It definitely compromises their safety. - From what I understand, [Mrs Hill] has worked at the prison for quite a length of time – She was delivering programmes for another provider prior to her employment with Workforce. She is not new to our environment and should be aware of dangerous situation she has put herself and our staff in. If she is not, then I am even more concerned for her safety. [19] Mrs Greenhalgh noted that the letter from Mr Kaiwai contained an...

10. JD v Accident Compensation Corporation (Mental Injury) [2023] NZACC 87 [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...claim due to insufficient evidence to materially link major depression to her claim. The Corporation also declined cover for major depression under the covered sensitive injury claim of 29 September 1997. 9 [40] On 27 September 2019, Dr Gil Newburn, Psychiatrist, diagnosed PTSD, major depressive disorder, and mild neurocognitive disorder due to TBI, and personality change. Dr Newburn advised further: [The appellant] presents with the consequence of two separate injuring event...