New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Onus and standard of proof

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2023

Est of McCulloch [2023] NZHC 1825

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1825
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the Public Trust discharged the onus that the deceased had testamentary capacity when she gave instructions (16 August 2021) and executed the will on 1 September 2021 because the changes were minor, rational and explicable in light of changed circumstances, prior medical assessment showed capacity three months earlier, the experienced trustee's contemporaneous observations raised no concern, and the nurse present expressed no incapacity concerns; accordingly the September 2021 will is valid and admitted to probate in solemn form.
2 Jun 2023

LINGMAN v R [2023] NZCA 209

Citation

[2023] NZCA 209
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the trial directions (including use of 'honestly') were not materially erroneous when read in context, isolated misstatements did not mislead the jury, prejudice and sympathy directions adequately cautioned the jury about post-offence conduct, and the post-mortem photograph was probative and its prejudicial effect was managed by directions; no miscarriage of justice was shown.
6 Aug 2020

GRBAVAC v VUJCICH [2020] NZHC 1953

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1953
Court

High Court

The Court found lack of testamentary capacity was a tenable issue given the deceased's advanced age, stage 5 renal failure, sensory impairments, repeated indecisive conduct over 2011–2013, unexplained and abrupt adverse changes in beneficiaries effected by the 2013 codicil, absence of contemporaneous medical or solicitor records showing enquiry into capacity, and poor professional record-keeping. Once lack of capacity was a tenable issue the onus shifted to the defendants to prove capacity on the balance of probabilities; they failed to discharge that onus. Accordingly the 2013 codicil was in…
15 Jul 2011

NICHIBO TRADING COMPANY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V LUCICH & ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-3869

Citation

openlaw-01ef34b4_36bb_4434_8307_bce1850c951a.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts the Court found both respondents purchased the Pajero in the ordinary course of Baja's used car business, provided value, and did not know the sale constituted a breach of the vehicle supply and security agreement between Nichibo and Baja; accordingly s53 applied and the respondents took the Pajero free of Nichibo's security interest, so the application to maintain the financing statement failed.
18 Nov 2003

Rielly v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 289
Court

District Court

In the absence of cogent and appropriately qualified medical evidence contradicting the appointed assessor, and given that the assessor applied the AMA Guides with proper clinical judgment, the assessor’s impairment assessment must be accepted; the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof, so the review decision upholding the assessment (and the offset of the prior 10% permanent impairment) stands.
16 Oct 2003

Barnett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 255
Court

District Court

Considering the contemporaneous documentation (Oldham referral, appellant's submissions and declaration, correspondence noting identical medication, and the subsequent 24 September 1976 notes), the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the 3 September 1976 clinical notes were authored by Dr McCallum and recorded a prescription for benzodiazepines; accordingly the Benzodiazepines accident date is 3 September 1976 and the appeal must be allowed and the reviewer's decision quashed.
10 Oct 2003

Accident Compensation Corporation v Hendrickx

Citation

[2003] NZACC 252
Court

District Court

There was insufficient evidence that the respondent suffered a physical injury as required by s29(1)(b); medical reports disclosed pain but not objective physical injury or findings establishing the causal nexus under s33, therefore the reviewer’s decision granting cover was quashed and the matter remitted for further medical evidence.
24 Jul 2003

McDonald v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 163
Court

District Court

The court accepted the weight of specialist medical evidence that the appellant's ongoing back pain is no longer causally connected to the 18 October 1994 accident, held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus on the balance of probabilities that the 1994 injury remains a substantial cause of his incapacity, and therefore upheld the respondent's lawful suspension of entitlements.
27 Oct 1995

Heywood v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 127
Court

District Court

On the medical evidence the facial palsy did not amount to a significant disability lasting more than 28 days and there was no proven medical error; therefore the review officer's decision to decline cover was correct and the appeal is dismissed.