Search Results

1. [2022] NZACC 169 — Porter v ACC (25 August 2022) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...disc injury in 2005? In this regard, the Judge had the report of the clinical advisory panel who reviewed the case and who answered the question posed to it: is there any basis to link the cause of the symptoms in 2019 to the 2005 accident? The response was “in the CAP’s opinion, no.” This clear-cut answer from the clinical advisory panel justified the Judge’s conclusion that the original decision was clearly wrong. [36] As to the fourth question: did the Judge err by dec...

2. EI v TB [2020] NZDT 1699 (19 March 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...stopped to let EI through and that he had not been able to react and stop in the time available. He said that at the point of impact half of the bonnet of EI’s car was on the median strip. TB felt that he had taken sufficient care and that EI was responsible for the collision occurring. [10] Mr N, who represented B Ltd at the hearing, was also of view that EI had caused the collision. He drew my attention to the case of Netzler v Economy Taxi Limited [2006] DCR 185 which he thought ma...

3. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Potter [2022] NZLCDT 36 (12 October 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...(2014) and eight months (2018). In 2014 he was also subjected to an order under s 242(1)(g)2 prohibiting him from practising on his own account until authorised by the Tribunal. When that order was made, it was stated that “this is a cautious response, which might not need to be long term, but is protective of the public in the meantime.”3 That order has not been discharged. It remains in force and is still required. [8] Those earlier suspensions arose from foolish defaults....

4. [2023] NZEnvC 104 Exotic Developments Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...[8] On 9 September 2022, the Council filed an application seeking costs against EDL. The Council seeks a contribution of $4801.50 being 33 per cent of its total costs incurred in responding to the declaration proceedings. EDL filed a reply in response to this application on 16 September 2022 opposing the costs application and submitting that costs should lie where they fall. Section 285 Resource Management Act [9] Under s 285 of the Act, the Court may order any party to pay to a...

5. DN v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 145 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...[11] On 19 May 2021, the Corporation received a review application from the applicant. The review application did not refer to a decision by the Corporation. The application referred to various issues, including that there was not an appropriate response from the police and the Corporation after he reported the assault, and the medical treatment was delayed and inadequate. The applicant said that he wanted to claim damages against the Corporation, and referred to baseline damages of...

6. Variath v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late Appeal to the District Court) [2023] NZACC 010 [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...and anxiety to Ms Variath if her appealable matters were heard together (Ms Variath has also lodged appeal ACR 03/23). [14] This Court notes that Ms Variath’s delay arose out of the error of her advocate, and Ms Variath does not appear to be responsible for this error. (c) The conduct of the parties [15] The Supreme Court observed that a history of non-cooperation and/or delay by an applicant might be relevant. [16] This Court is not aware of any history of non-cooperati...

7. BS v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 168 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...him about payment for storage between the time that the plank was first installed and paid for and then stored and four years later when he made the decision not to go ahead with the repairs. 15. I also take into account that BS was not solely responsible for waiting for four years before acquiring a haul out date from O Ltd. I accept that Covid 19 and the lock down period described by NX frustrated the process. I also accept there were times when O Ltd couldn’t accommodate BS’s re...

8. HN v N Ltd [2023] NZDT 146 (16 June 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...only $50 at the time and left. He has since been issued several reminders that he has an account balance of $48 that is overdue with the clinic. 7. HN now seeks a declaration that he is not liable to pay the $48 sought by the clinic. 8. In response, HL appearing on behalf of the clinic said the appointment for obtaining a driver’s medical certificate is unsubsidised under New Zealand capitation model. Even if the patient has a community services card like HN, they pay the full fee...

9. NU v OA [2023] NZDT 748 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986. 21. The applicant submitted that the respondent provided false statements to him when he attempted to resolve his differences. The applicant said that the respondent falsely and incorrectly stated that OA has no responsibility for clearing and removal of the crashed jacaranda tree over his driveway. 22. The applicant provided a time line of events and it was not disputed that despite attempts by the applicant to explain to the respondent that t...

10. DT v SC [2023] NZDT 23 (25 January 2023) [pdf, 100 KB]

    ...the School, in early June 2022 and forwarded relevant information about the overpayment. Since that time, despite numerous emails, texts, and calls, HI and DT have not been able to make contact with SC, nor have they received a response; CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 c. the Tribunal is clearly aware of the limited liability principles of the Companies Act 1993 and the legal distinction between a company and its shareholders. However in these circ...