New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Regulatory compliance

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2021

EVOLVE GROUP 4 LTD v SECRETARY OF EDUCATION [2021] NZHC 683

Citation

[2021] NZHC 683
Court

High Court

On the interim application the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo: the plaintiff had a protectable position (loss of funding, reputational damage, disruption to 53 children and their parents), the claim was seriously arguable, and the immediate and significant disruption to children and parents of summary closure outweighed the Secretary's asserted but presently unproven risk to child safety; accordingly an interim order preventing suspension until the substantive proceeding or an earlier order was necessary and proportionate.
21 Dec 2020

BAYER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2020] NZHC 3470

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3470
Court

High Court

Interim relief was declined because the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored refusal: MPI's regulatory interest and the importance of voluntary compliance, the disadvantage to competitors and public confidence outweighed Bayer's commercial prejudice, Bayer had knowingly assumed commercial risk by relaunching a product MPI consistently regarded as non‑compliant, and the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by refusal of interim relief.
16 Sept 2019

MCGUIRE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 433

Citation

[2019] NZCA 433
Court

Court of Appeal

Regulation 5(1)(b) does not preclude the New Zealand Law Society from including reference to open or outstanding complaints in certificates of standing; given the statutory scheme and protective purpose of the Legal Services Act and associated regulations, the Society was entitled to include such information and there was no arguable statutory or contractual duty to provide certificates omitting open complaints, so summary judgment for the Society was properly entered and the appellant's cross-application failed.
12 Feb 2018

McBRIDE STREET CARS LIMITED v THE DISTRICT COURT (DUNEDIN REGISTRY) AND LOACH [2018] NZHC 111

Citation

[2018] NZHC 111
Court

High Court

Given the totality of circumstances — a well presented vehicle sold at market price, vendor knowledge that it was a statutory write-off, failure to obtain a proper signed acknowledgement of the CIN and deliberate diversion to the VOSA — McBride's omission was objectively misleading or deceptive under s 9 FTA; mere reference to 'imported as damaged' was insufficient where vendor knew the vehicle had been statutorily written-off and the information was material to the purchaser.
27 Apr 2016

TAO v STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD [2016] NZHC 814

Citation

(2016) 17 NZCPR 312
Court

High Court

Defendants established that none of the plaintiff's pleaded causes of action could succeed on the evidence: the service contract was validly authorised under the AGM resolution and Regulation 17, notices of meetings were issued in compliance with the Regulations, financial statements and audits complied with statutory requirements, levies and budgets were body corporate decisions, and no grounds were shown to justify appointment of an administrator; accordingly summary judgment was granted for the defendants and the application for appointment of an administrator was dismissed.
23 Nov 2001

Bolesworth v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 325
Court

District Court

The Court held that s300 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 and the 1999 regulations require the premium to be calculated by reference to the prior financial year's income (1998/99) and prorated for the nine-month period, leaving no discretion to use income actually earned in the premium period; therefore the respondent's calculation of $1,321.70 was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Nov 2001

Bolesworth v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 325
Court

District Court

The District Court held that the Act and the cited Regulations unambiguously require the premium to be calculated by reference to the prior financial year's income under the prescribed formula, leaving no discretion to use income earned in the premium period; accordingly the respondent's calculation was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
29 Jul 1999

Kennedy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 243
Court

District Court

The Court found that Dr Harvey expressly stated she applied the AMA Guides, that expert evidence (including Mr Brougham) did not establish that she failed to apply the Guides, and that the appellant's experts either accepted the possibility of a nil rating under the Guides or suggested a non‑conforming 'compromise' assessment; therefore there was no basis to find the assessment improperly conducted and the Corporation's decision denying entitlement to an independence allowance was correct.
4 Dec 1998

Nicholl v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 258
Court

District Court

Because the 1997 Regulations required an objective assessment under the AMA guides and the independent assessor complied with that regime producing a 7% impairment (below the 10% threshold), the appellant ceased to qualify for the independence allowance and the Court has no power to overturn that regulated medical assessment; appeal dismissed.
18 Sept 1998

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 209
Court

District Court

Because the reassessment under section 54A was carried out in accordance with the Act and regulations and produced a whole-person impairment of 2% (below the statutory 10% threshold), the Corporation was required to cease the Independence Allowance; no evidence showed the assessment was non-compliant or flawed, so the appeal fails.