New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causal nexus

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2022

HICKS v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 312

Citation

[2022] NZHC 312
Court

High Court

Although the District Court judge erred in applying the personal circumstances discount after the guilty plea discount rather than as part of a global second‑step discount, the three‑month discount he afforded was within range given his finding that the psychiatric evidence did not clearly establish a causal nexus to the offending; the end sentence of two years and two months is not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Dec 2015

THOMAS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 3252

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3252
Court

High Court

No question of law was established; the District Court correctly found on the evidence that there was no probative causal nexus between the 2012 surgery and the covered injury, the applicant failed to obtain prior approval and to supply required information, and accordingly the High Court should refuse special leave in the exercise of its discretion.
30 Oct 2015

AUCKLAND MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH v BIRTHCARE AUCKLAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2689

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2689
Court

High Court

The Authority and High Court held that although alcohol consumption during pregnancy poses unequivocal harm, the MOH did not establish a sufficient causal nexus between the published risks and the actual manner in which Birthcare operated its on-licence (very limited sales, controlled environment, health warnings and no evidence of harmful patient consumption), so renewal was properly granted; MOH has no onus to prove causation but the Authority may lawfully give the MOH evidence limited weight in the evaluative exercise.
30 Jan 2015

Khademnia v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 17
Court

District Court

The Court held that the conflict between a recent specialist spinal surgeon's opinion linking the 2007 incident to an annular tear and the Corporation's occupational medicine opinion that the condition was primarily degenerative created sufficient doubt such that the Corporation did not have the requisite basis under s17(1) to be satisfied the claimant was no longer entitled; consequently the review decision was quashed and entitlements restored from the date of suspension.
20 Feb 2014

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 36
Court

District Court

Appeals dismissed because claimant failed to supply required medical evidence and a valid consent to enable ACC to determine whether the 2012 surgery and related transport/home help were for a covered injury, and there was no prior approval for treatment or taxi transport; statutory scheme (Act and Regulations) requires prior agreement and evidential causal nexus, which were absent, so ACC had no liability and did not unreasonably delay.
5 Dec 2013

Christopher v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 402
Court

District Court

On the balance of evidence the Court accepted the treating shoulder surgeon's account of mechanism, clinical and intra-operative findings and the claimant's consistent accident history, and rejected the CAP's generalised reliance on lack of early shoulder notes and a degenerative explanation; accordingly there was a highly significant causal nexus between the 2 May 2009 accident and the bilateral shoulder injuries and need for surgery, so ACC must recognise cover and fund the surgeries.
30 Jul 2009

TAUPO DISTRICT COUNCIL V MOUNTAIN VIEW NURSERY LIMITED HC ROT CIV 2008-463-000551

Citation

openlaw-04a2cb93_5bf8_49f8_9266_8d4e9c6428e1.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Deed of Arrangement bore signatures and likely created an enforceable contractual obligation, genuine and material factual disputes exist about the circumstances of execution, calculation of the claimed sums, possible offsets for works performed and misapplication of the Council's policy; those disputes and credibility issues make summary judgment inappropriate and warrant a full trial.
10 Aug 2007

Hira v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 181
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate any tenable question of law: the only medical evidence before the District Court supported the finding that there was no causal nexus between the 1991 physical injuries and the psychological condition, there was no contrary medical evidence, and the criticisms raised were factual or procedural rather than legal errors.