Search Results

1. Vaka v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2024] NZACC 197 (2 December 2024) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...Woods. [100] On this basis there is no validity to this criticism of Mr Woods’ approach and no basis to establish a higher premorbid starting point on Dr Newburn’s evidence alone. Psychometric testing should not be considered in isolation. [101] Dr Newburn argues the sufficiency of the medical, physical, social, and emotional history taken is important to consider the real-life position and not see the testing in isolation. Dr Newburn says, “what varies across the reports i...

2. [2024] NZREADT 32 – JX v CAC2201 & Baker (13 September 2024) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...reply, “That’s right”, coupled with the use of “master” in the description of Mr T, implies not only that he was a master builder but that such a builder’s guarantee covered the work even after the purchaser bought the property. [101] We conclude that any reasonable person would have understood the licensee’s email to be saying Mr T was a master builder and the work came with a master builder’s guarantee of 10 years, which could be transferred to the purchaser. Th...

3. Hubert v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of cover) [2024] NZACC 179 (12 November 2024) [pdf, 381 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2024] NZACC 179 ACAR 058/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN MICHELE HUBERT Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 24 July 2024 Heard at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances by AVL: D Wood lay advocate for the Appellant B Johns for the Respondent Evidenc

4. C Ltd v CZ [2024] NZDT 779 (11 November 2024) [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...being lived at between October 2022 and the first hearing date for this claim in March 2024. The fact that it was not suggests that [the Trust] had no issue with the height of the joinery and benchtops until it was pointed out to them by T Ltd. 101. As the height and dimensions of the overhang are in accordance with the shop drawings agreed to by [the Trust], there is no breach of the contract, the CGA or the BA in this regard by C Ltd. The entrance unit: 102. A significant a...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 98 The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children v Hill [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...agree with that finding. However, I consider that the defect was 61 At [170]–[172]. 62 At [173]. minor and did not result in Ms Hill being treated unfairly. Therefore, I find that Ms Hill was not disadvantaged by that step.63 [101] Counsel for both parties also filed submissions on whether the dismissal was justified more broadly. However, those submissions go beyond the pleadings before the Court, and I therefore do not consider them. Outcome [102] In li...

6. LCRO 130/2021 TF v SM (8 May 2025) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...where a non-client has sufficient personal interest in such an issue to establish good grounds for making a complaint. I do not consider this matter to be one of them. (b) Did the respondent misuse information confidential to the applicant? [101] Rule 8.8 of the Rules provides that: A lawyer must not breach or risk breaching a duty of confidence owed by the lawyer that has arisen outside a lawyer–client relationship, whether to benefit the lawyer, a client, or otherwise. In su...

7. LCRO 34/2023 PI v SY (27 June 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...the appropriate step that should have been taken at commencement, was to file judicial review proceedings. It was recommended to Mr SY that steps be taken to abandon the appeal, with efforts being made to avoid potential costs to Mr PI. 16 [101] The other counsel instructed, considered that one of the conditions that Mr PI sought to have challenged was capable of being addressed through the vehicle of a District Court appeal, but with caution that the grounds for challenge were limit...

8. Derham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Gradual Process Injury; Suspension of Entitlements) [2025] NZACC 026 (17 February 2025) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...being asymptomatic. The evidence in this case does not establish these elements. I do not consider either Dr Collinson or Dr Walls to have established a traumatic injury or to have unequivocally attributed the symptoms to the February accident. [101] This is particularly so, given CAP determined there was no radiological evidence of any traumatic pathology and “no superimposed traumatic pathology on the background of degenerative changes.” [102] Based on the medical opinions...

9. [2025] NZEmpC 48 Brown v The Clinician Holdings Ltd [pdf, 287 KB]

   CRAIG BROWN v THE CLINICIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED [2025] NZEmpC 48 [17 March 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2025] NZEmpC 48 EMPC 355/2023 IN THE MATTER OF an application for a declaration under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 BETWEEN CRAIG BROWN Plaintiff AND THE CLINICIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 21–25 October 2024 Appearance

10. LCRO 55/2024 EFH and KFH v SP and NR (15 October 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...proceedings is a matter for the court pursuant to s 148 of the Land Transfer Act 2017. In relation to that possibility, I repeat the observation made in the first review decision that the findings I have made are not binding on a court. Decision [101] Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Act, the decision of the Committee is reversed. [102] I determine that no further action be taken on the complaint as against NR under s 138(2) of the Act, as further action against her is inappropriate...