Blog Archives

[2013] NZSC 147 This was a successful appeal against a decision that a contract settling proceedings under the Public Works Act had been frustrated by the subject premises catching fire. The appellant operated a childcare business on land leased from Auckland Council (the respondent). The settlement agreement resolved issues between the parties arising from the

[2013] NZSC 42 This was an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision in which a compulsory easement was granted over the appellant’s land for 3 electricity towers. The NZTA was undertaking a road-widening project and wanted to move 3 electricity towers owned by Orion NZ Ltd, a network utility operator onto the appellant’s land

[2013] NZLVT 1 (13 March 2013) This was an application based on s 66 Public Works Act (disturbance payments). The issue was whether holding costs and abortive expenditure could be compensated under s 66. NZTA had an interest in acquiring the subject property in contemplation of a motorway development. NZTA offered to purchase the property

[2013] NZLVT 3 (24 October 2013) Mr Wu was the owner of a residential property and objected to the valuation of his property by Auckland Council. The caluation of the land as at 1 July 2011 was originally assessed as $750,000.00, and was subsequently revised as $680,000.00. Mr Wu disagreed, and estimated the land value

(High Court, 11 September 2013, Heath J, [2013] NZHC 2367) These three judicial review proceedings were heard together and involve questions regarding eligibility under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act), access under the Financial Assistance scheme (FAP) and who the “decision maker” is in regard to that scheme. Adina Thorn Lawyers acts