New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Binding precedent

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2019

R (SC 101/2019) v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2019] NZSC 135

Citation

[2019] NZSC 135
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because Tangiora, which held the UNHRC is not a "judicial authority" for the purposes of legal aid, remains binding; the relevant statutory provision has been reenacted unchanged, there is no sufficient change in the legal landscape or exceptional circumstances to justify overruling Privy Council precedent, and the proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success.
12 Feb 2019

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v WHAT IT TAKES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2019] NZCA 6

Citation

[2019] NZCA 6
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the Supreme Court's decision in McGuire v Secretary for Justice displaces the Court of Appeal authority that the High Court relied on to refuse costs, and the parties consented to allow the appeal without referral back to the High Court.
12 Feb 2019

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v NEW ORLEANS HOTEL (2011) LIMITED [2019] NZCA 4

Citation

[2019] NZCA 4
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed because the Supreme Court's judgment in McGuire altered the legal position established by earlier Court of Appeal authority on which the Associate Judge relied, and the parties consented to the appeal being allowed with no costs orders.
21 Oct 2016

FANG v THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2016] NZHC 2617

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2617
Court

High Court

Because the court has jurisdiction under r12(3)(b) to grant interim relief, and the applicant demonstrated a seriously arguable case given conflicting High Court authority on the application of Singh to s177(5), and because the balance of convenience and procedural fairness required preserving the applicant's position pending appeal, interim relief to prevent removal was justified.
13 Nov 2015

O'NEILL v THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 2823

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2823
Court

High Court

Special leave was dismissed because the review had been set down within three months so s146 did not apply, and the Court of Appeal had already determined there was no cover for the claimed medical misadventure, which precludes any entitlement to weekly compensation and leaves no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
4 Sept 2013

Accident Compensation Corporation v Townsend

Citation

[2013] NZACC 292
Court

District Court

Because the reviewer awarded weekly compensation based on pre-incapacity earnings where the respondent was not an earner at the date of injury, the reviewer erred in law and, being bound by High Court authority, the Court must allow the Corporation's appeal and quash the review decision.
11 Jun 2013

Wealleans v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 167
Court

District Court

The application for leave is dismissed because the District Court is bound by the High Court decision in ACC v Vandy and therefore cannot grant leave to appeal on the question of law raised.
11 Jun 2013

Kogler v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 164
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the District Court was bound by the High Court decision in Vandy, which addressed the statutory question under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and precluded granting leave in the circumstances before the Court.
11 Jun 2013

SA v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 165
Court

District Court

The District Court must adhere to the High Court's interpretation in ACC v Vandy; because that binding authority resolves the legal question against the applicants, leave to appeal to the High Court on the question of law is refused and the application is dismissed.
11 Jun 2013

RN v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the District Court is bound by the High Court decision in ACC v Vandy and therefore lacked a basis to grant leave; parties may seek special leave to the High Court together.