New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of further evidence

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2020

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v NG AND “L” [2020] NZCA 274

Citation

[2020] 2 NZLR 683
Court

Court of Appeal

The phrase 'ordinary consequence' in s 32(1)(c) does not mean 'more probable than not'. It means an outcome within the normal range of outcomes of the treatment — i.e. not surprising or out of the ordinary. The assessment is case-specific, taking into account all circumstances including clinical knowledge and patient factors, and may be informed but not determined by statistical evidence.
12 Jun 2019

BODY CORPORATE 87945 v MARINE PARADE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1311

Citation

(2019)20 NZCPR 893
Court

High Court

The Court settled the s 74 scheme and approved allocation of remediation costs by utility interest because the building's interrelated configuration meant remediation materially benefits the whole complex, practical difficulties make precise unit-by-unit cost allocation unworkable, the scheme had broad support from owners, and the utility interest approach fairly balances owners' interests in the circumstances.
8 Oct 2018

PATEL v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2018] NZHC 2616

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2616
Court

High Court

The High Court held as a matter of law that 'concealed' relevant information under ss158(1)(b)(ii) and 202(ca) is determined objectively (applicant knew of objectively relevant information and failed to disclose it) and no subjective intention to conceal is required; further, an applicant's intent or culpability need not be considered when determining whether there are 'exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature' under s207 (intent may be relevant only in the subsequent unjust/unduly harsh balancing); the Tribunal did not err on these legal points, and the further evidence was not adm…
11 Jul 2016

BRIGHT v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1560

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1560
Court

High Court

The Court held that non‑compliance by the Council with the Public Records Act does not constitute a defence to a ratepayer's statutory obligation to pay rates; the Council's assessments and invoices met the statutory requirements of ss 45 and 46 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002; no valid rates postponement application had been made; accordingly summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal fails.
19 Dec 2014

REEVES v LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3338

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3338
Court

High Court

Award 2B costs to plaintiffs and disbursements fixed by the Registrar, decline indemnity or uplift because the Calderbank offer could reasonably have been rejected at the time and 2B effectively indemnified the plaintiffs; reduce plaintiffs' recoverable costs by NZD 1,990 for failure to properly disclose and over-redaction of Mrs Reeves' diaries; award defendant 2A costs for opposing the plaintiffs' interlocutory application to adduce further expert evidence; leave to either party to seek further directions on calculation or implementation.
1 Oct 2012

ROBY TRUSTEES LIMITED V MARS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED COA CA30/2012

Citation

openlaw-3eb72f7b_810b_4267_93c0_7bc927c0c55e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

When assessed as whole and in context of retail sale of chilled dog roll the OPTIMIZE PRO 'Lead the Pack' device is visually and aurally distinct from Mars' OPTIMUM marks (the addition of 'PRO' and 'Lead the Pack' sufficiently differentiate the marks) and therefore its use is not likely to deceive or confuse a substantial number of consumers under s17(1)(a); related s25(1) conclusions follow.
21 Apr 2011

TVNZ V WEST HC AK CIV-2010-485-002007

Citation

openlaw-e0871f7b_5a6c_4f58_9d06_f9f48b62d0e6.pdf
Court

High Court

On the TVNZ/Hung appeal the Court found the BSA majority was plainly wrong to characterise the scene as gratuitous and solely titillating because the narrative context, AO–9.30pm classification, late screening time and warnings made the scene integral and foreseeable; the TVNZ appeal was allowed and the BSA decision reversed. On the TVWorks/Home and Away appeal the Court found the Authority's judgment that the raunchy scene was inappropriate in a G timeband and the s5 proportionality balancing were within the Authority's discretion and not plainly wrong; the TVWorks appeal was dismissed and t…
29 May 2007

DAVID EDWARD LYALL ZIMMERMAN V DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS HC WN CIV-2006-485-761

Citation

openlaw-79359320_712d_499f_b0c0_9156d0c03169.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's refusal of permanent name suppression because the public interest in openness, transparency and protection of health and safety outweighed Dr Zimmerman's private interests; the Tribunal did not err in principle and the additional affidavit evidence was not admitted and would not have altered the outcome.