New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Non-retrospectivity

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2007

Nicholl v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 46
Court

District Court

Taupo Hot Pools is not a 'treatment provider' under the 2001 Act and therefore there is no statutory entitlement to reimbursement of the pool pass or travel incurred retrospectively; travel contributions are limited to travel to the nearest treatment provider and ancillary services require prior agreement or inclusion in an Individual Rehabilitation Plan; decisions made under the Accident Insurance Act 1998 are subject to that Act's three‑month review period and the 2001 Act does not permit retrospective extension of that period, so the late review was properly refused.
2 Mar 2005

HOOD V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR CA CA16/04

Citation

openlaw-4da2f93d_0eef_49a8_af6b_5810101e6375.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that, under the 1928 Act/1914 Education Act definition, a standalone Playcentre did not fall within the 'public school' purpose for which the Hood land was originally taken and that a standalone Playcentre was not within the 1981 Act's definition of 'essential work'; however, pre-1981 arrangements between the Crown and the Council to vest the entire old school site for reserve/community purposes once no longer required for education had accrued and made it unfair and unreasonable to require the Crown to offer the land back under s40(2), so the appellants' claim failed and the a…