31 Oct 2014
The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the GP's failure to monitor and treat caused a new or discrete physical personal injury to her; the symptoms alleged were attributable to pregnancy/post-partum or pre-existing disease and thus no compensable treatment injury to the mother arose, so the appeal is dismissed.
12 Jun 2012
The appeal was dismissed because the immigration officials and the Minister had expressly considered the appellant's family circumstances and New Zealand's international obligations (notably ICCPR); given that substantive rights of the family had been taken into account and the Minister waived the five‑year re‑entry requirement, more explicit treatment of UNCROC as applying to an unborn child would not have produced a different outcome, and the appellant lacked a respectable chance of success to justify interim relief under s 8.
1 Jun 2011
The Court of Appeal held that the CSA Act empowers the Abortion Supervisory Committee to perform general, systemic oversight and to require and analyse anonymised data and reports, but does not empower the Committee to review or scrutinise individual certifying consultants' clinical decisions or to form its own determinations about the lawfulness of particular abortion authorisations (absent bad faith); Wall v Livingston remains authoritative that individual medical judgments are for certifying consultants and are not subject to after‑the‑fact Committee review; the CSA Act does not create an…
24 Mar 2011
Applying binding Court of Appeal authority (ACC v D) and statutory provisions, continuation of pregnancy in this case did not constitute a personal injury of the mother for which ACC cover is available; even if the fetal lesion continued due to misdiagnosis, where the child is born alive the child, not the mother, is the person entitled to claim for antenatal injury; the Corporation validly revised the deemed decision under s65 because the deemed grant of cover was an error and s65 permits revision to avoid an unjustified windfall.
3 Oct 2007
At interlocutory stage the two paediatricians' affidavits were not struck out because they are neutral, descriptive expert evidence about current medical practice that is not plainly irrelevant or collateral to the judicial review; relevance not disproved and potential opinion status can be addressed later.