New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Section 33

  • 29 Jul 2008

    Accident Compensation Corporation v McEnteer

    Citation
    [2008] NZACC 176
    Court
    District Court

    The District Court judge concluded there are fit and proper, difficult questions of law concerning the interpretation of sections 32 and 33 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (notably the meaning and effect of 'necessary part' and 'ordinary consequence' and the evidential allocation under s32(2)), granted leave to appeal those questions to the High Court, added an additional question regarding injuries 'wholly or substantially caused' by underlying health conditions, and granted a stay of the judgment pending appeal.

  • 25 Jul 2008

    Hurren v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2008] NZACC 166
    Court
    District Court

    On the balance of probabilities the evidence established that the appellant's finger osteoarthritis was caused by significant, work-related loading and repetitive force consistent with the employment tasks, the causative workplace properties were not found to any material extent in his non-work activities, and persons performing those tasks face a significantly greater risk; therefore the Section 33(2) criteria were satisfied and the ACC's revocation of the deemed grant of cover was erroneous and must be quashed, with cover reinstated effective from the date of revocation.

  • 14 Jun 2004

    Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2004] NZACC 159
    Court
    District Court

    The application for leave was dismissed because the appellant raised factual disputes about causation and treatment choices, not any error of law; the District Court correctly applied statutory provisions, relied on independent expert and medical evidence, and its factual findings did not disclose an arguable legal error for the High Court to consider.