New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of statute

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2016

PUB CHARITY INC v DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2016] NZCA 11

Citation

(2016) 22 PRNZ 814
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the Department withdrew its proposal to suspend Pub Charity's licence shortly before the hearing thereby rendering the appeal unnecessary, the Court awarded costs to the appellant for a standard appeal on a band A basis for all steps up to and including preparation for the hearing and disallowed any uplift; the Court declined to interfere with the High Court costs order, expressing doubt about jurisdiction and finding no basis to vary that order on the material before it.
22 Jul 2014

TODD AARON MARTELEY v THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 94

Citation

[2014] NZSC 94
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal is granted because the questions identified—whether the Court of Appeal correctly construed s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 and whether costs should have been awarded—are matters of legal importance requiring determination by this Court; accordingly leave is granted and the approved questions are set for appeal.
15 Mar 2012

FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011

Citation

FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that the natural textual meaning of 'processor' in the definition of 'independent processor' includes processing carried out personally or by contractual arrangements (toll processing); there is no requirement that processing occur in facilities owned by the claimant, and a party intending to have processing done on its behalf qualifies as an independent processor, so Fonterra's appeal was dismissed.
12 Jan 2006

Cummings v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 2
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant raised tenable questions of statutory interpretation concerning the 1998 Act and its transitional provisions that are capable of bona fide and serious argument and have wider significance; Judge Beattie had concluded that under s423 and the Act the appellant could not have attendant care backdated to the date of injury and that the ordinary effect of the 1998 Act is to treat the claim as if the injury occurred on or after 1 July 1999, with no provision authorising retrospective attendant care absent express transitional provisions.
29 Jun 2004

M v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 179
Court

District Court

The Judge's findings were factual and supported by the evidence: there was no contemporaneous medical evidence of incapacity as at 4 September 1991, the appellant had a pre-existing alcohol dependency not shown to be a sequela of the assault, and the preferred medical opinion did not establish that the appellant was incapacitated by mental consequences of the assault at the relevant time; accordingly no error of law was shown and leave to appeal was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

PUB CHARITY INC v DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2016] NZCA 11

TODD AARON MARTELEY v THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 94

FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011

Cummings v Accident Compensation Corporation

M v Accident Compensation Corporation