New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Regulation interpretation

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2012

MARLBOROUGH LINES LIMITED V ALASDAIR LORNE CASSELS HC BLE CIV-2010-406-147

Citation

openlaw-1699b6d1_541c_4aa4_9097_d8e344062214.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its declaratory jurisdiction in respect of issues capable of resolution by statutory interpretation and effective contradiction and declined hypothetical, purely fact-dependent declarations. Reg 11(2) is interpreted to include the reasonable cost of dealing with debris not on adjoining land; 'adjoining land' in regs 11(4) and 12(1) means land adjoining the property on which the tree stands (not land adjoining the tree); under reg 16(4) where a works owner trims pursuant to a valid no-interest notice the works owner, if requested by the land owner, may either remove debris…
18 Aug 2003

Crabb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 195
Court

District Court

Regulation 8 governs reimbursement. The 14‑day condition in Reg 8(1)(a) was not met and cannot be cured by reasons beyond the claimant's control; however Reg 8(1)(b) permits aggregation of separate journeys occurring within the same calendar month so that the total may exceed 80 kilometres. The appellant travelled 148 kilometres within the relevant calendar month and is therefore entitled to reimbursement at the statutory rate.
9 Jun 1997

Adams v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

Appellant did not meet the Regulation 2 requirement of having received in‑patient services following initial treatment; therefore she does not qualify as having a 'long term disability' and is not entitled to motor vehicle purchase assistance under Regulation 5, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 Oct 1995

Humphrey v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 114
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because Regulation 6 barred payment for travel to a place further than the nearest place where treatment could be provided, the Corporation had reasonable grounds that Timaru could provide the treatment, and no contrary evidence was produced; therefore the Review Officer's decision to refuse travel costs was upheld.
24 Jul 1995

Walsh v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 77
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal to the High Court was granted because the central issue—interpretation of Regulation 11 and whether it permits payment in emergency cases—is a question of law appropriate for appellate consideration.
16 May 1995

Walsh v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 57
Court

District Court

Regulation 11's prior approval requirement must be read to permit an emergency exception to avoid absurdity; because the appellant faced an emergency and the treatment was necessary to restore him to his principal economic activity, the Corporation's refusal was revoked and it must pay the private hospital costs according to the regulatory scales.
16 Feb 1995

Wells v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 9
Court

District Court

Regulation 3 validly extended the regulations to applications for transport undertaken on or after 1 July 1992; the appellant's helicopter transport did not meet regulation 4(2) (no request by police or ambulance operator) and did not commence within the 24 hour requirement, so the Corporation correctly declined reimbursement and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Sept 1994

Fell v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1994] NZACC 51
Court

District Court

Section 26 restricts the Corporation to providing only aids and appliances authorised by regulations; the Aids and Appliances Regulations 1992 do not authorise provision of an ordinary waterbed for this claimant (first schedule excludes ordinary beds; second schedule confines waterbeds to cases satisfying Reg 7(3) economic criteria which are not met or evidenced here); accordingly the Corporation lawfully declined to fund the waterbed and the appeal is dismissed.