4 Oct 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law; the primary judge's decision was based on factual findings supported by overwhelming medical evidence that there was no causal link between the 2008 back injury and the knee condition, and the applicant did not discharge the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.
9 Apr 2008
Most complaints were matters of fact lacking objective evidence of prejudice; only one question of law was suitable for statement to the High Court: when a mandatory requirement of the independent vocational assessment is breached, upon whom does the evidential or legal onus fall to show the integrity of the process was not compromised. Leave was granted to state that question.
30 Aug 2007
The Court of Appeal granted leave because there were two discrete questions of law of public importance suitable for second appeal: whether an evidential onus rested on the applicants to demonstrate appropriate mitigation measures, and whether the Environment Court's 'meeting of the minds' construct was directed to the RMA purpose of sustainable management. The Court did not decide the substantive issues but reframed those legal questions for appeal and awarded costs on the leave application.