Search Results

1. LR v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for overseas rehabilitation costs) [2023] NZACC 29 [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...BETWEEN LR Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 20 February 2023 Held at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: J Carrigan for the Appellant F Becroft for the Respondent Judgment: 1 March 2023 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for overseas rehabilitation costs – s 128, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer d...

2. Yandall v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements) [2023] NZACC 104 [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...OF THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT BETWEEN FLORA YANDALL Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 19 June 2023 Appearances: Appellant in person Ms B Squires and Ms S Shaw for Respondent Judgment: 29 June 2023 ___________________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J MCGUIRE [Personal Injury s 20 and Suspension of entitlements s 117; Accident Compensation Act 2001...

3. CL & ZA v GU LCRO 148/2013 (25 May 2016) [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [24] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:2 1 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [41]....

4. Provision of Public Information for the 2020 Referendums [pdf, 857 KB]

   ...26. The reason for this is that such issues could be perceived as speculative or supporting a particular position. Including more ‘pros and cons’-type information will inevitably mean the materials will contain assumptions and value judgements that may be disputed by parties to the debate. I recognise that this places limitations on the scope of materials that public service agencies will provide. 27. This means that, for example, the information will not discuss the merits...

5. LCRO 107/2021 NG v WF and OE (29 September 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [46] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:9 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determ...

6. Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) July 2012 [pdf, 506 KB]

   ...integrity. The Ministry’s accountability is not diminished because it is shared. The courts have a unique and cri cal role because they are the fi nal arbiters of what is a correct outcome according to law. Consistency and predictability of judgement reduces uncertainty about how the law will be applied, so providing a be er framework for avoiding disputes and encouraging people to resolve problems without recourse to the courts. Delivering opera onal excellence is also cri cal...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 224 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...HAINES, ALAN HEALY, RUSSELL RINGDAHL, DAVID VINEY and TIM LAWTON Second Defendants Hearing: 25 - 27 February 2013 (3 days) Appearances: Rob Towner, counsel for the plaintiff Geoff Davenport, counsel for the defendants Judgment: 3 December 2013 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] The Lyttelton Port Company Ltd (the Company) operates the port at Lyttelton. Historically, its business was conducted on or near to the town’s waterfront on Lyttelt...

8. Mahanga - Taiharuru 2A1 (2008) 125 Whangarei MB 25 (125 WH 25) [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 125 Whangarei MB 25 A20060025043 UNDER Section 164, Te Ture Whelma Maori Act 1993 Hearing: Judgment: Introduction IN THE MA TIER OF Taihamm 2Al 16 Januaty 2007 (Heard at Whangarei) 9 May 2008 TE MAA WE MURPHY MAHANGA Applicant RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER [1] This is an application by Te Maawe Murphy Mahanga to transfer by way of gift 1.0845 shares in Taihamm 2Al in his matemal first cousin, Collee...

9. [2022] NZACC 31 – Rigney v ACC (9 March 2022) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 2 February 2022 Heard at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-A-Tara Appearances: Mr A S Carlyle, advocate for the appellant Ms S Churstain and Ms L Aitken for the respondent Judgment: 9 March 2022 ____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J McGUIRE [Social Rehabilitation s 79 and 81-84 Accident Compensation Act 2001] ___________________________________...

10. 2025] NZEmpC 183 Legal Hub Ltd v Singh [pdf, 207 KB]

    ...HUB LIMITED Applicant AND RAVINDER BHAN SINGH Respondent Hearing: 22 July 2025 (Heard at Christchurch via Audio Visual Link) Appearances: B Cunningham, counsel for applicant M Robinson, counsel for respondent Judgment: 19 August 2025 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH [1] Legal Hub Ltd is an incorporated law firm practicing in Auckland. The firm’s only director, and principal, is Yashveen Singh who is a practicing solicitor. [2...