New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Re-hearing

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2019

HANSON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2019] NZHC 2052

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2052
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the consent order and for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish genuine impecuniosity or any substantive basis to disturb the consent order; the appeal appears weak and is a rehearing on the same evidence so there is unlikely to be an alternative conclusion; accordingly security of $2,230 remains payable by the deadline and a stay is refused.
3 Jul 2019

ALPHA CARS WHOLESALE (2018) LIMITED v AL-CHALABI [2019] NZHC 1556

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1556
Court

High Court

The originating application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with court directions and prosecute the proceeding, resulting in inordinate and inexcusable delay that seriously prejudiced the respondent, and there was no substantial issue as the Disputes Tribunal had declined the re-hearing and reinstated its enforceable order.
9 Oct 2014

Young v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 252
Court

District Court

By consent, leave to appeal was granted on the specific question of law whether the District Court Judge overlooked relevant evidence that could have led to a different conclusion because the parties agreed material evidence had been unintentionally overlooked and a re-hearing is the appropriate remedy; costs were reserved pending the outcome of the substantial appeal.
12 Dec 2011

FARMLANDS TRADING SOCIETY LIMITED V ROBERT A BELL HC WN CIV-2011-485-1057

Citation

openlaw-e44f6230_b130_4e7a_8c25_6c64aff62f5d.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Disputes Tribunal granted the re-hearing subject to the condition that $7,123.87 be paid into Court and that condition had not been satisfied at the time of the application, the original Tribunal order remained in force and there was no effective ground to set-aside the Bankruptcy Notice; dismissal was ordered but stayed to permit the debtor to satisfy the condition by a fixed deadline, upon which the notice would be set aside.
1 Dec 2008

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION V MCENTEER HC WN CIV-2008-485-1800

Citation

openlaw-1edb19e6_4115_4682_8662_8c96ce5f1c9f.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 32(1)(c) should be read to treat injuries that are either a necessary part of treatment or an ordinary consequence of treatment as exclusionary; the evaluation of what constituted necessary parts and ordinary consequences is to be informed by the actual course of the particular treatment as it occurred (having regard to the claimant's underlying condition and clinical knowledge at the time), and there is no statutory positive onus placed on the Corporation to prove s32(2) exclusions once a claimant has made out a prima facie case.
14 Aug 2008

KHAN V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC AK CIV 2007-485-001632

Citation

openlaw-5865677b_d55b_459b_9cfe_484ee51e2390.pdf
Court

High Court

s91(4) of the ARCI Act does not import r 493 of the District Courts Rules to permit a District Court to order a re-hearing of an appeal already heard and determined under the ARCI Act; the statutory scheme is comprehensive and the District Court is not a final appellate court so the inherent power relied on in R v Smith does not assist; accordingly leave to appeal is refused because the issue is not capable of bona fide and serious argument.
25 Feb 2008

KHAN V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC AK CIV 2007-485-001632

Citation

openlaw-86b7d423_8af8_4a81_8194_267380c409db.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court did not have jurisdiction under the ARCI Act and its Regulations to order a re-hearing of an appeal by invoking r 493 of the District Courts Rules; the ARCI statutory and regulatory scheme is comprehensive and does not contemplate re-hearing powers by the District Court beyond those expressly provided, and available High Court remedies are adequate to redress errors.
20 Jul 2007

Khan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 155
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal to the High Court was granted because the decision of Judge Cadenhead raised a bona fide question of law — specifically whether the District Court has jurisdiction under the Act to order a re‑hearing — and that legal question merits determination by the High Court.