26 Feb 2019
Leave for a second appeal was granted because the proposed appeal raises bona fide and serious questions of law and fact, including matters of public importance about the correct application of the Hague Convention and the weight to be given to expert evidence, and these considerations outweighed cost and delay such that the L v K criteria were satisfied.
31 Jul 2018
Application for special leave was refused because it was filed outside the statutory 21-day period and the High Court has no jurisdiction to extend that time; alternatively, on the merits the proposed grounds raise factual findings (credibility and expert evidence) not questions of law and the District Court correctly applied the statutory tests and rejected the claimant's evidence, so no arguable legal error existed.
11 Jul 2018
The appeal was dismissed because Ngāi Te Hapū Inc failed to pay ordered security for costs and the appeal had no realistic prospect of success: most substantive grounds were out of time, many alleged errors were factual evaluations outside a s299 appeal, and the Environment Court lawfully concluded it could not require full removal of the wreck as a condition of a consent to abandon; the Environment Court properly considered expert evidence, Māori and Treaty matters and imposed lawful, reasonably related conditions including monitoring and offsets.
20 Jun 2018
No bona fide question of law was identified because the challenged findings were factual evaluations of competing medical evidence including the threshold determination that no identifiable physical injury was established under s30; accordingly there is no legal error to appeal and leave is refused as there are no sufficient discretionary reasons (public interest or other) to grant leave.
5 May 2017
Court found the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis on the balance of probabilities to justify ACC's suspension of entitlements; the judge preferred the claimant's medical evidence and relevant OSH guidance and concluded ACC was not entitled to suspend benefits, so the suspension was set aside.
24 Mar 2016
On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffered a low voltage electric shock while using the hairdryer; credible eyewitness accounts, an unchallenged electrician's report demonstrating exposed live components and a viable moisture conduction path, contemporaneous medical records, and specialist medical opinion establish both occurrence of a shock and causation of neck injury by sustained tetanic muscle contraction. Accordingly the Corporation's decision to suspend cover was quashed and the review decision set aside.
4 Jul 2013
The court preferred the treating prosthodontist's evidence (Dr Cautley) that, given the severity of acid erosion, failed/ineffective conservative measures, the patient's inability to afford extensive restorations, and limited chewing needs, full extraction and provision of full dentures is necessary and appropriate to restore health to the maximum extent practicable; therefore ACC must fund the regulated contribution for that treatment and the reviewer's decision is quashed.
22 Mar 2013
The judge accepted the expert evidence of Dr Bentall and Dr Kerr that, on the balance of probabilities, the appellant's need for surgical release of the common extensor tendon was directly caused by the 4 November 2009 accident rather than being merely a gradual process rendered symptomatic; therefore ACC must fund the surgery under Clause 1 Schedule 1 of the Act.
5 Apr 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law was established: the District Court's factual findings that the December 2006 incapacity was caused by Veillonella discitis unrelated to the 22 October 2006 lifting injury were supported by specialist medical evidence, so there was no arguable legal error to justify High Court leave.