New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehearing/remittal

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2020

KETU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 3338

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3338
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded that the appellant's evidence raised a real question as to whether exceptional circumstances might exist but there was insufficient material before the courts to conclude the circumstances were exceptional; therefore the mandatory destruction order under s57(3) was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Court for rehearing with directions that the appellant provide affidavit and expert evidence.
21 Dec 2018

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND HERITAGE LAND LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZCA 629

Citation

[2018] NZCA 629
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that although the Panel had power to receive material, fairness required the Panel to notify North Eastern that it might rely on Ms Conner's statement after the Council had indicated it would not call her; North Eastern was thereby denied a real opportunity to respond and that procedural unfairness required setting aside the Panel's recommendations and the Council decision in respect of the Albany 5 Precinct and the proposed Albany 5 Sub-Precinct B Business—Mixed Use and directing a re-hearing and re-decision under the LGATPA.
14 Sept 2018

REEKIE v CLAIMANTS A & ANOR [2018] NZHC 2434

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1685
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's failure to serve the offender with a copy of the claims and to provide a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions under s31 constituted a breach of natural justice that tainted its decision; the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for rehearing with directions that the Tribunal comply with s31, consider limitation and ACC issues, and apply the general law and established principles when assessing entitlement to and quantum of exemplary damages.
4 Nov 2016

MERJ HOLDINGS LTD v SIPKA HOLDINGS LTD [2016] NZCA 521

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1505
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined. The Court held the High Court has jurisdiction under s 76 of the District Courts Act to direct rehearing and to direct the District Court to consider matters for the first time, including permitting further evidence that was available at trial; that jurisdiction is broad and not limited to the trial court's own rehearing powers, though the power should be exercised sparingly; the exercise of discretion to remit in this case was not sufficiently arguable to warrant leave for a further appeal.
4 Jul 2016

BUCKLEY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 1500

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1500
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed because the District Court failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting key expert evidence and for its causation conclusion, such failure amounted to error of law warranting remittal for rehearing on whether the claimant suffered a treatment injury under the Act.
19 Jun 2015

Gordon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 155
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because relevant documents (the deemed review decision and mediated agreement), accepted by both parties as clearly relevant to causation, were not placed before the District Court and their omission meant the District Court judgment may now be in error as a matter of law, satisfying the threshold for leave under section 162.
29 Apr 2009

FORREST V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND (ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) HC AK CIV-2009-404-002074

Citation

openlaw-b0399273_91f9_43ee_b4a9_71f4d424d369.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court erred in treating the claim as time-barred because the appellant was a minor and the correct limitation expiry is 28 September 2009; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for rehearing on the correct accrual date (28 September 2003).
18 Nov 2003

Bigwood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 288
Court

District Court

The appeal is allowed because issues of informed consent and medical error require primary fact‑finding that was not properly conducted at review (teleconference); the matter is remitted for a rehearing before a different Review Officer on those issues. The court accepted that, in light of medical evidence (Dr Wallis) and concession by respondent, benzodiazepine dependency can constitute a personal injury for the purposes of the Act and therefore the reviewer's contrary finding should not stand.