30 Nov 2021
The High Court held that a destruction order under s57(3) is an integral element of sentencing and requires a conviction; on the facts the dog showed a pattern of unprovoked attacks and the owner failed to mitigate risk, so the circumstances were not exceptional and destruction was justified; appeal dismissed.
15 Feb 2017
The Court found no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument because on the facts the Corporation complied with the time limits in s57 by obtaining and considering additional information within the permitted extension period, so s58 was not engaged; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
22 Oct 2015
The Corporation issued a valid extension within the initial two month period and made its decision within the extension after receiving additional clinical information; therefore ACC complied with s57 and s58 does not operate to grant a deemed decision in the appellant's favour; appeal dismissed.
11 Sept 2014
On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove that his PTSD was suffered 'because of' the physical injuries from the 1997 accident (no proximate relationship, absence of head injury, relatively minor/infective laceration with ordinary healing, and significant intervening/previous medical history), therefore no personal injury under s26(1)(c) and ACC's and the Review Officer's decisions are confirmed.
30 Jul 2014
The Court found on the evidence that the 2004 BMW X5 and the $1,000 cash were tainted property or, alternatively, that profit forfeiture was available because the respondent had obtained benefits from drug offending equal to or exceeding their value; accordingly asset forfeiture orders were granted and forfeiture would not produce undue hardship.
23 Sept 2010
On the authority of Parmanadan, an immigration officer is not required to apply the s 47(3) test when making a removal order under s 54; alternatively, even if s 47(3) applied, the officer considered the relevant humanitarian and child welfare matters, correctly concluded there were no exceptional circumstances, and the removal order was open to the officer, so judicial review fails.
28 Sept 2009
Section 58 provides a remedy only for failures to meet statutory time limits in s56 or s57; inadequate quality of investigation or omission of review-rights information does not trigger s58 deeming. The Reviewer’s power to quash and direct further investigation under s145 is the correct remedy for deficient investigations. On the facts ACC obtained the claimant's agreement to extension and issued its decision within the agreed period, so s58 did not apply; the appeal is dismissed.