New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of regulations

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2012

Jarvis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 336
Court

District Court

The Schedule's specific item for 'other preparation of case for review' sets a single monetary limit for preparation which cannot be extended or repeated, and the 'other expenses reasonably incurred' item is not a basis for awarding additional representation or advocate preparation costs; therefore the appellant is not entitled to further costs for preparation of final submissions and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Apr 2012

RYAN PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED V WELLINGTON ELECTRICITY LINES LIMITED HC WN CIV 2011-485-2011

Citation

openlaw-214c2375_6df7_495b_a1bb_2148b19d7e6c.pdf
Court

High Court

The retrospective validation in s 4(1) of the Electric Power Boards Amendment Act 1961 cured any defect in the authorisation for the kiosk, rendering the precise ambit of the 1956 Order-in-Council non‑decisive; accordingly the earlier judgment stands and no amendment is warranted.
20 Jun 2011

FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED V THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC SC 38/2011

Citation

SC 38/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the central question—whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001—presented a legal issue of sufficient importance to justify a full appeal to this Court.
20 Aug 2010

VERANO PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOR V ANA AND IVICA SEVER CA CA309/2010

Citation

openlaw-a448a174_b72c_4f29_9ab3_4d3314a6d678.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Regulation 4(a)(i) must be read in text and purpose: the Exemption Notice requires the rules supplied before subscription to be the rules of a society already incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, because only an existing incorporated society can have definitive rules and financial statements and this construction best advances the disclosure and certainty objectives of the Securities Act.
10 Dec 2008

KIDD V EQUITY REALTY (1995) LTD AND ANOR CA CA648/2008

Citation

openlaw-cf10ec8e_cb67_4494_a39e_4468f0fb7f58.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted on questions concerning joinder and costs; the court held reg 69 should continue to be read as a reference to r 11 of the 1997 Rules but that, given the new procedural regime in the 2005 Rules, reg 69 is now redundant and does not require payment of security at the leave application stage; accordingly the appellant is not required to pay security under reg 69 now and only becomes liable to pay security if he elects to bring an appeal within 20 working days under r 29(1)(b) of the 2005 Rules; the court declined to require payment into court as a condition of grantin…
24 Mar 2005

Gardner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 90
Court

District Court

The reviewer and Court were bound by the Regulations' prescribed categories and maxima; the scribe's fee was not recoverable because the scribe did not attend or was not associated with the review hearing under the schedule; pre-review solicitor fees in excess of the maximum allowed for preparation/representation are not recoverable; therefore the reviewer's award of $240 ($145 preparation, $95 appearance) was correctly applied and no further costs are permitted.
9 Feb 2004

Accident Compensation Corporation v Gill

Citation

[2004] NZACC 10
Court

District Court

The court held the respondent was entitled to reimbursement of transport costs under Regulation 8 because she established that Dr Ewer at Mapua provides the particular rehabilitation she requires and the appellant failed to provide evidence that a nearer practitioner in Richmond could provide equivalent treatment; Regulation 17 was not applicable and the Reviewer's decision was upheld for different reasons.
29 Aug 2000

Stevenson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 228
Court

District Court

Because the appellant was never admitted to hospital or any similar institution as an in‑patient following the injury, he did not satisfy the Regulations' requirement that the disability persist for more than three months from discharge from in‑patient services; therefore he did not meet the definition of 'long term disability' and was not entitled to a motor vehicle grant under the 1992 Regulations.
12 Feb 1999

Hing v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 26
Court

District Court

The regulations unambiguously limit the respondent's liability for non-emergency transport to the lowest scheduled public transport fare or the statutory per kilometre rate (amended to 55 cents per kilometre); therefore the respondent is not required to pay full taxi fares and has no discretion to do so, and the Court indicated it may lack jurisdiction to determine future travel cost claims but clarified the statutory position.
10 Dec 1998

Harache v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 263
Court

District Court

Judge Beattie identified and accepted there is a question of law whether post-accident earnings should be measured by income returned for tax purposes (after permitted deductions) or by the Earnings Definitions Regulations' narrower definition; he treated the tax-return basis as the measure in the challenged decision but found the legal question sufficiently arguable and granted leave to appeal under s97.