New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causation and burden of proof

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2009

STEVENS AND OTHERS V PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LTD SC 23/2008

Citation

STEVENS AND OTHERS V PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LTD SC 23/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held Premium breached fiduciary duty and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by providing misleading and incomplete information that concealed the purchaser's status as a trader and a conflict of interest; appellants proved loss caused by that breach measured by the lost opportunity to achieve a higher price (best evidence being vendors' untainted willingness to sell at $2.8m), and were entitled to compensatory damages net of commission plus repayment of commission as restorative relief; disgorgement of purchaser's profit was not available against Premium.
15 Mar 2006

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 63
Court

District Court

Medical opinion from multiple specialists established the T4 compression fracture required considerable external force and there was no evidence of underlying bone pathology; absence of a pinpointed event or date does not preclude inferring an accident from the medical and other evidence; therefore on the balance of probabilities the injury was caused by an accident and cover must be granted.
27 Sept 2004

Hunt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 308
Court

District Court

The 3 July 2002 form was so ambiguous and on its face a duplicate of an earlier claim that ACC was not obliged to make a decision or produce a deemed decision; on the merits the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was an identifiable physical injury caused by a work-related gradual process under s30 because medical opinion was divided and no persuasive evidence established the required employment-specific causation, so the appeal is dismissed.
7 Sept 2000

Flavell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 236
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant discharged the onus to show that his ongoing pain and incapacity were caused by the July 1991 accident or its consequences; expert reports of Professor Burry and Dr Franzmayr were sufficiently credible to outweigh orthopaedic opinions that degeneration was the substantial cause, therefore s.10 did not exclude cover and the respondent's decision under s.73 to cease weekly compensation was set aside.
9 Jun 1998

Hita v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 123
Court

District Court

The 13 March 1997 letter was a preliminary statement, not a final reviewable decision, so s.90(9) did not apply; on the balance of probabilities the medical evidence established that the appellant's ongoing incapacity was due to pre-existing degenerative changes originating before ACC cover, and the February 1995 accident did not cause the degenerative condition, therefore no entitlement to cover and the review decision was upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

STEVENS AND OTHERS V PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LTD SC 23/2008

Anderson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hunt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Flavell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hita v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation