Search Results

1. Spray Marks NZ Ltd v Accident Compensation Corporation (Industry Classification) [2023] NZACC 127 [pdf, 454 KB]

   ...Act had given it and in so doing: a. It did not make an error of law; b. It did not fail to take into account some relevant matter; c. It did not take into account an irrelevant matter; d. It did not make a decision which is plainly wrong. [101] Accordingly, ACC’s decision of 2 December 2020 upholding the single classification unit of CU42590 – Construction Services (not elsewhere classified) stands, and the appeal against that decision is dismissed. [102] Costs are reserved...

2. MacDonald v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury/Costs on Review) [2023] NZACC 175 [pdf, 339 KB]

   ...hearing. [100] Accordingly, I rule that in respect of the second review hearing Ms Koloni is entitled to half scale costs. I expect the figure to be agreed between Mr McBride and Ms Koloni without the need for further involvement by the court [101] The result of this appeal therefore is that both appeals ACR 306/21 and ACR 31/22 are dismissed save for costs at review in respect of ACR 31/22. [102] Costs on the appeals, ACR 306/21 and ACR 31/22 are reserved. C J McGuir...

3. [2025] NZEmpC 34  Xu v Pioneer Education and Immigration Services Group Ltd [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...Customs Service:18 17 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113, [2018] ERNZ 337 at [67]; and Waikato District Health Board v Archibald [2017] NZEmpC 132, [2017] ERNZ 791 at [62]. 18 GF v Comptroller, New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101, [2023] ERNZ 409 at [162]. (a) band 1 – low-range loss: $0–$12,000; (b) band 2 – mid-range loss: $12,000–$50,000; (c) band 3 – high-range loss: $50,000 or more. [78] In support of his claim for increased compensa...

4. Martin v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2025] NZACC 35 (26 February 2025) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...any event, Mr Tasman-Jones considers the addendum Dr Best added to the April 2021 X-ray report is consistent with his own previous assessment. [99] I turn now to answer the issues as posed by the parties. [100] Was it a correct diagnosis? [101] Under section 33 (1)(b) of the Act for a diagnosis to cause personal injury it must be a wrong diagnosis. Mr Chou’s response to the HDC and his reporting letters to Ms Martin explain the clinical and radiological evidence on which he re...

5. IPT Annual Report 2024 [pdf, 484 KB]

   ...30 June 2018 30 June 2019 30 June 2020 30 June 2021 30 June 2022 30 June 2023 30 June 2024 Tribunal Average (days) 247 228 208 201 175 175 274 353 194 226 187 116 Residence 240 134 173 116 60 101 76 98 32 76 82 85 Deportation (Non-resident) 228 230 184 127 90 89 121 141 76 131 133 102 Refugee and Protection 329 248 215 159 137 98 142 162 79 173 142 94 Deportation (Resident) 425 425...

6. LCRO 23/2023 VT v NH (18 March 2025) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...be recorded by way of an Acknowledgement of Debt. That would have required Ms NH to take independent advice at that time. In that way, the subsequent anxieties caused to Ms NH, about her ability to remain in her home, may have been avoided. [101] Without independent advice, I have some doubt that anyone, and Ms NH in particular, appreciated the liability that she was implicitly assuming. [102] With independent advice, the purchase could have been structured differently so that Ms...

7. Gwak and Kim TRI-2020-100-006 [2024] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...product, was nonetheless a well-known and BRANZ approved cladding system and was installed by a suitably qualified and experienced installer. According to both Mr Couper and his expert, Mr de Leur, the two products were “virtually” identical. [101] The authorities referred to by counsel have a similar theme, a private certifier or territorial authority must take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance with the building code. This can be met by the receipt of a suitable pro...

8. LCRO 8/2022 QQ v LW (8 October 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...apply and I confirm the discussion by the Committee about each of the sub-rules. Mr QQ’s submissions [100] Mr QQ says that by copying the letter to Mr LW and his instructing lawyers, he minimised the consequences of his breach of the rule. [101] If that submission were to be accepted as a defence to a breach, it would defeat the substance of the rule. [102] Mr QQ submits that the Committee misconstrued the facts and made findings adverse to him that are wrong, and caused the...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Woodroffe [2025] NZLCDT 1 (7 January 2025) [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...to be merely equivocal: he says he wasn’t advised; Mrs Woodroffe says he was. On careful examination, we find that the 11 Bundle, 130. 12 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55; [2009] 1 NZLR 1, from majority decision at [101]. 7 Standards Committee has satisfied the evidential burden. We set out our reasons in the next few paragraphs. [19] We find that the client, who had already invested more than $35,000 was palpably affected on 8 October 2019...

10. LCRO 61/2022 YJ v GQ (29 October 2024) [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...for Mr GQ to advise her to take independent advice. [100] I also note that it is common for a parent to appoint a child or children, to be executors of the Estate, while at the same time including that child or children as a beneficiary. [101] Ms YJ also considers that Mr GQ was conflicted when he continued to act on instructions from [Law Firm 2], for the Estate to pursue repayment of the debt. [102] I find it difficult to understand that complaint. Mr GQ had previously acted...