New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pecuniary loss

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2016

CHALECKI v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 517

Citation

[2016] NZHC 517
Court

High Court

Special leave was declined because none of the issues met the Murray threshold: the questions either were factual, would not affect the outcome, or lacked sufficient public importance or arguability. The Authority was correct to confine review to the 14 April 1993 decision rejecting the self-employment grant, to conclude that no specific claims for farm expenses or business losses had been made at that time, to find s80 inapplicable to the claimed losses, and to accept as a factual matter the existence of a circa $5,000 guideline for ordinary self-employment grants; no extraordinary factor ju…
18 Jul 2012

FIRST SOVEREIGN TRUST v NEW ZEALAND RACING BOARD HC WN CIV 2011-485-0003

Citation

openlaw-f841ce17_0ee6_4812_9f05_2b31b8dc74b9.pdf
Court

High Court

The press release's words were capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings and therefore the question of ordinary meaning, identification, punitive damages and pecuniary loss are matters for the jury; the misnamed first plaintiffs (trustees) should be amended to the First Sovereign Trust because the amended pleading showed the Trust was the real plaintiff and no prejudice was shown.
15 Jun 2007

ESTATE OF SYDNEY CLAUDE SIMPSON V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA CA74/06

Citation

openlaw-03da880e_4c54_4518_b7ea_ec65f1d2e9f5.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Sections 121(2)(b) of the 1972 Act and 80(2)(b) of the 1982 Act require proof of actual, identifiable pecuniary loss or expense incurred before ACC may exercise its discretion to pay; gratuitous family attendant care without such monetary detriment is not compensable under those provisions, and 'constant personal attention' in s 80(3) requires a level of care across the 24‑hour period such that the Matthews facts did not meet that threshold.
4 Oct 2005

POU & ANOR V BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NZ) LTD & ANOR CA CA199/04

Citation

openlaw-585706b3_50c1_4af3_9253_9a851f48bd07.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that McCarthy v Palmer correctly states New Zealand law that claims under the 1952 Act are confined to pecuniary losses; non‑pecuniary solatium claims for loss of society are not recoverable; however the appellants' pleaded limited pecuniary claims (assistance in caring for and bringing up Kasey's child, gratuitous financial assistance, and provision of necessities such as food and clothing) were legally tenable and the strike‑out of those parts of the s 7 claim was reversed and reinstated.

New Zealand Case Law

CHALECKI v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 517

FIRST SOVEREIGN TRUST v NEW ZEALAND RACING BOARD HC WN CIV 2011-485-0003

ESTATE OF SYDNEY CLAUDE SIMPSON V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA CA74/06

POU & ANOR V BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NZ) LTD & ANOR CA CA199/04