New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidentiary burden

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2018

CAMSING TRADING LTD v PARKERS BEVERAGE COMPANY LTD [2018] NZHC 2289

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2289
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the statutory demand except as to $56,436.93 because Parkers established an indisputable indebtedness of $58,164.93 and Camsing established only an arguable set-off of $1,728 (defective packaging repair). All other set-off claims were either insufficiently evidenced, contingent, or unquantified and therefore failed to meet the clear and persuasive evidential standard required to defeat the statutory demand under s 290(4)(b).
17 Apr 2018

PAUL GEOFFREY MYALL v TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED [2018] NZSC 35

Citation

[2018] NZSC 35
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the disputed issues were fact‑specific and dependent on the evidence led; despite some reasoning errors below, the conclusions on professional fees and area adjustment were open to the courts and did not raise questions of public or general importance nor demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
10 May 2016

EDEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v STANLEY DAVID WILLIAMS [2016] NZHC 939

Citation

[2016] NZHC 939
Court

High Court

The court found the presumption of resulting trust applied and that the respondent had not produced sufficient contemporaneous evidence to rebut that presumption or to establish loan terms; material factual uncertainties and credibility issues meant there was a genuine and substantial dispute unsuitable for resolution on a setting aside application under s290, so the statutory demand was set aside.
10 Jul 2015

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 192
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to present any question of law: the core issues were factual—no evidence linked the 2012 surgery to the covered injury, no proof of incurring transport or home help costs was provided, and the appellant failed to comply with ACC information and pre-approval requirements—therefore s162 leave could not be granted.
16 Mar 2015

McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 67
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish that the incorrect gentamicin dose caused kidney damage, and the Reviewer's decision was supported by ACC's expert opinion (Dr Wong) finding no convincing evidence of such damage.
9 Mar 2012

VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND HENRY DAVID LEVIN AS LIQUIDATORS OF FREESTYLE STAINLESS STEEL LIMITED V EVAN LANCE KEMP, TRACEY MICHELLE SOFFE AND GLYNIS MONEY HC AK CIV 2009-404-007876

Citation

openlaw-99c9b5c8_eee6_4ea4_912d_1866f92bc603.pdf
Court

High Court

The respondents failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the $25,000 (and the other amounts of $12,000 and $6,000) were loans or non-company receipts; company records and GST entries indicated the deposits were company business receipts, therefore the payments were insolvent transactions recoverable by the liquidators and judgment was entered for repayment.
17 Oct 2011

G v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 298
Court

District Court

Because the appellant failed to establish any physical injury caused by medical treatment as required by section 32 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and a misdiagnosis/mental condition is not itself a treatment injury, the appeal must be dismissed.
23 May 2011

CLIFFORD LAMAR LIMITED V GYENGE COA CA147/2011

Citation

COA CA147/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave was dismissed because it raised primarily factual challenges and credibility issues which do not constitute questions of law under s 214; the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to show no evidentiary basis for the Employment Court's findings, and procedural complaints were either not raised below or were matters for which the applicant had available remedies (eg subpoenas, inclusion in the agreed bundle).
22 Jul 2009

Heatherbell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to produce supporting medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of Lyme disease and causation; speculative assertions, internet material and an unconfirmed clinical notation are insufficient to meet the required evidentiary standard.
23 Jun 2008

SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NZ V HARKINS HC AK CIV-2008-404-001757

Citation

openlaw-e3c7ef23_10f9_4e5c_b32c_2b5b0537d44a.pdf
Court

High Court

Having found the claimants failed to prove ownership and having regard to the commercial methamphetamine manufacture and supply from the premises, the $70,000 was properly characterised as proceeds of crime and ordered forfeited under the PCA; the $3,500 was accepted as coming from a plausible innocent transaction and was not tainted, and there was insufficient evidence to establish benefits exceeding the $70,000 forfeited so no pecuniary penalty was ordered.