Search Results

Search results for judgments on line.

2846 items matching your search terms

  1. Edmondson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2024] NZACC 183 (19 November 2024) [pdf, 212 KB]

    ...EDMONDSON Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: On the papers Submissions: H Menneer for the Appellant A Miller and A Lane for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 19 November 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal physical injury - s 26(1)(b), Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer da...

  2. Estate of N Kearney v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 162 (14 October 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

    ...BEHALF OF ESTATE OF N KEARNEY Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 12 September 2024 Held at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: J Tebbs Kearney as the Appellant B Johns for the Respondent Judgment: 14 October 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A SINCLAIR [Treatment Wound, s 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from a review decision dated 8 December 2023 in which the Reviewer dism...

  3. Arnold v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2024] NZACC 157 (2 October 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

    ...COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 September 2024 Held at: Wellington/Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: P Schmidt for the Appellant H Evans for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 2 October 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for weekly compensation - ss 52-53, Accident Compensation Act 1982] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 11 March 2024. The...

  4. 2021-03-23 Transcript (up to Mr McIndoe on day 10) [pdf, 3.4 MB]

    ...OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL PLAN CHANGE 7 – ENV-ENV-2020-CHC-127 (08 Mar 2021) to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan, but prior to the Environment Court hearing the appeal on 3 and 4 December 2014): [16] Since the Supreme Court judgement in EDS v NZ King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZRMA 195 there has been an increased awareness of the need to consider the hierarchy of planning documents, and the degree of control those 5 documents have over the required or permissible cont...

  5. Mohinui 3B2B (2011) 27 Taitokerau MB 136 (18 TTK 6) [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...Sections 19 and 328, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Mohinui 3B2B BETWEEN STEPHEN TAUTARI SOPHIE HOKIMATE MAHANGA Applicants Hearing: 19 January 2011 3 February 2011 (Heard at Kaikohe and Whangarei) Judgment: 16 March 2011 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Introduction [1] There are two applications before the Court for occupation orders pursuant to s 328 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (―the Act‖). Stephen Tautari seek...

  6. Deputy Registrar - Ohawini A6 (2011) 21 Taitokerau MB 172 (21 TTK 172) [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...A20100009225 UNDER Sections 131 and 133, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Ohawini A6 BETWEEN DEPUTY REGISTRAR Applicant Hearing: 24 August 2010 13 December 2010 13 April 2011 (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 26 May 2011 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Background [1] Haora Areka is recorded as the registered proprietor of Ohawini A6 (CFR NA 16A/908), a 1442m² section that fronts Whangaruru Harbour. The land is General...

  7. AB v WA & Ors LCRO 68/2015 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

    ...LCRO on review [20] The role of the LCRO on review is to reach his own view of the evidence before him. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason.1 Submissions at hearing [21] At hearing, Mr and Mrs AB submitted that: (a) There was no evidence in the Committee decision that the Committee members had properly investig...

  8. TB v KP LCRO 174/2016 [pdf, 167 KB]

    ...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. [25] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:8 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

  9. [2017] NZEmpC 68 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 272 KB]

    ...be given to fairness in the Court’s exercise of judgment will differ according to the circumstances including the character of the privilege it is said has been waived which, as in this case it is litigation privilege. [39] To my mind the judgments in Ophthalmological Soc and Shannon indicate where the boundaries of s 65(3)(a) lie. While the former espouses a test based on the Court’s objective judgment as to the consistency of the claimant’s conduct with maintaining the pr...