Search Results

1. Feaver v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to High Court) [2024] NZACC 51 [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...then stated: [100] It is acknowledged that bursitis is a condition, rather than an injury. However, it is accepted that age alone is a significant factor in the development of bursitis, as Dr Nicholson and the other professionals have said. [101] The ultimately question though is whether what occurred on that day caused or contributed to her bursitis. [102] I find that Mr Sara is right to challenge the proposition that because degeneration causes bursitis, that the bursitis condit...

2. [2023] NZEmpC 233 Danske Mobler Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...drawn in s 9(1)(b)(ii) between rostered and unrostered overtime. Discussion on the first question [33] Distilling these opposing points, several conclusions can be reached on a preliminary basis. 13 GD (Tauranga) Ltd v Price [2019] NZEmpC 101, [2019] ERNZ 304. 14 Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc, above n 2, at [27] (emphasis added). [34] The Court of Appeal in the Postal Workers case was plainly dealing with provisions that have since been altered. There may now...

3. [2019] NZEnvC 005 The New Zealand Heavy Haulage Association Incorporated (Huose Movers Section) v South Tarnakai District Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...to the Council, promptly upon receiving a request in writing and an appropriate tax invoice, the Council's reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred in connection with the preparation and engrossment of this Deed. 10. MISCELLANEOUS 10.1 All payments under this Deed will be made in cleared funds without deduction, withholding, set-off or counterclaim. 10.2 The entry into and performance of obligations under this Bond shall not merge with or release any rights or obligation...

4. Chalecki v ACC [2012] NZACA 15 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...both parties to the District Court, which the appellant did not exercise. Discussion [31] Mr Forster relied upon the “wider and more generous provisions of the 1982 Act”, in particular the ability to seek a review of a decision under s 101 if dissatisfied with a decision of the Corporation concerning the granting or payment of rehabilitation assistance under the Act, the extended definition of a “decision” in s 2 to include any determination, requirement, assessment,...

5. [2022] NZACC 20 - Harris v ACC (21 February 2022) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...2018 finding there was no jurisdiction to make a review decision in either case. [2] At review hearing 6064087, the appellant sought to review a decision of the respondent dated 20 October 1999, awarding interest on weekly compensation under s 101 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). [3] At review hearing 6065089, the appellant sought to review ACC’s decision of 20 October 1999 calculating and awarding Mr Harris transport costs for the period 14 June 1986...

6. [2021] NZIACDT - 12 EM v Yong (3 June 2021) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 7 [40] The Tribunal has received from the Registrar the statement of complaint (8 September 2020) and supporting documents. Submissions from the complainant [41] The complainant has filed a statement of...

7. Director of Proceedings (EFG) v Commissioner Police [2012] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...Police did not meet the standard of accuracy required by Principle 8. The Tribunal further found that the breach had given rise to significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity and significant injury to feelings. The remedies granted were: [10.1] A declaration under s 85(1)(a) of the Privacy Act that the Police conduct in disclosing the Noting to third parties infringed Principle 8 of the Act and that as a consequence the Police had interfered with the privacy of EFG. [10.2] A...

8. INZ (Greathead) v Ortiz [2019] NZIACDT 59 (29 August 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...7 Section 51(1). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 8, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 Legislative requirements 3. A licensed immigration adviser must: … c. whether in New Zealand or offshore, act in accordance with New Zealand immigration legislation, including the Immigration Act 2009, t

9. [2017] NZEnvC 174 New Zealand Transport Agency v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 13 MB]

   ...crossing place, I appreciate the reasons for the Transport Agency's desire to integrate the LAR 47 Porter, evidence-in-chief at [7.5J. 48 Ctark, Reply at [159J; Transcript page 216, tine 25. 49 Ctark, Reply at 69. 50 Applicant's closing at [101J - [105J. 51 Porter, evidence-in-chief at [7 .7J . 20 provisions under the GRPA with the resource consent process under the RMA. As I am required to do, I deal only with those matters of relevance to decision-making under the...

10. LCRO 111/2019 GH v SV (12 December 2019) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...or direction given. [100] It would provide fertile opportunity for parties to overburden the LCRO with a prolific raft of applications, if a Committee’s day to day administrative decisions were able to be the subject of review to the LCRO. [101] I am uncertain as to why the Committee failed to disclose the names of the Committee members, but in my view, requests to identify the lawyers who sat on a particular Committee, are properly directed to the Complaints Service. I have obse...