New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehearing standard

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2020

EARNSCLEUGH VINEYARDS LTD v MCNEILL DRILLING COMPANY LTD [2020] NZHC 2545

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2545
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed. The High Court held McNeill did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct: its opinions and advice were honestly held and reasonably based on extensive local drilling experience and expert hydrogeological evidence; there was insufficient evidence that an irrigation supply was likely from the flat/aquifer; McNeill was not obliged to advise location beyond the diviner‑selected site; drilling to 88.7m was chargeable under the per‑metre quotation and produced a usable bore; EVL did not prove causally linked loss or the quantum claimed.
15 May 2018

MALONE v R [2018] NZHC 1059

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1059
Court

High Court

On rehearing the High Court found the evidence supported the inference that Malone placed a tea towel in the oven with the oven and fan on intending the towel to ignite and cause damage to immovable property (the oven/room), and that his removal of a whiskey bottle and overall conduct supported an inference he entered with intent to commit an imprisonable offence (theft or wilful damage); no miscarriage of justice was shown, so convictions were upheld.
8 Aug 2017

MCDONALD v MCDONALD [2017] NZHC 1866

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1866
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed; High Court upheld Family Court decision that conditional relocation was in the children's welfare and best interests after proper consideration of s6 and s5 factors, given improved employment prospects for primary carer, maintenance of continuity and increased actual time with father; conditional proof of employment at $60,000 by 31 December 2017 is required and may be evidenced by affidavit; leave granted to apply for variation if employment terminates during the trial period.
24 May 2016

JACKSON v HOLDEN [2016] NZHC 1095

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1095
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed in part: Family Court valuations were generally upheld where supported by evidence but two errors required correction — the $2,350 sale proceeds of joinery was improperly treated as an independent asset of the appellant and a $50 valuation fee credit for the appellant was omitted. The Court adjusted the parties' apportionment of Geneva Finance payments (directing appellant to assume ten $600 payments) so the parties' net positions were approximately equal as set out in the amended table (appellant net ≈ -$18,408.49; respondent net ≈ -$18,914.18). No interference with the judge'…
28 Jun 2012

B V P HC WANG CIV-2011-483-000002

Citation

openlaw-9628004f_7c62_41e6_82f1_819f139b1cc2.pdf
Court

High Court

On rehearing the High Court gave decisive weight to the children's welfare and best interests under ss4 and 5 COCA, accepted the children's expressed wishes under s6 as significant, found the updating evidence materially undermined the Family Court's favourable assessment of the paternal grandparents (including indicators of drug dealing and a dysfunctional home environment), concluded that the father's continued conduct and failure to repair relationships increased emotional risk to the children, and held that these factors together justified allowing relocation to Perth despite potential lo…
8 Feb 2012

Stace v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 41
Court

District Court

Because the occupational particulars relied upon were superseded by a successor ANZSCO description that imposed materially greater physical demands, the medical assessment (which assumed lighter demands) could not be sustained; consequently the finding of vocational independence was incorrect and must be quashed and the appellant's prior status reinstated.
9 Apr 2008

WILDBORE V ACC HC WN CIV-2007-485-496

Citation

openlaw-be4cff19_0598_47f9_86c3_8bae01a9662a.pdf
Court

High Court

Special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted because the applicability of the May v May approach to District Court appeals from reviewers on vocational independence is a question capable of bona fide and serious argument and of public and private interest; leave was refused on challenges to the Ramsay guidelines and the 'common sense and holistic' interpretation; the District Court must assess the evidence of the medical assessor rather than re‑weigh medical causation matters beyond the assessor's opinion.
28 Oct 2004

Rasmussen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 340
Court

District Court

The Court's jurisdiction on appeal under s149 is confined to the correctness of the ACC primary decision of 13 September 2001; because ACC's medical evidence established the appellant's continuing problems were due to a pre-existing degenerative condition not attributable to the 1996 injury, suspension of entitlements was lawful and the Court could not make a primary finding about a separate 1984 injury not previously decided by ACC.
4 Dec 2000

Eketone v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 326
Court

District Court

Expert evidence (Dr Turner and Dr Monigatti) established that the biomechanical tasks of meat inspectors do not create a significantly greater risk of lateral epicondylitis than for persons not performing those tasks; therefore s7(1)(c) is not satisfied and the claim for cover fails; allegation of bias was rejected as unfounded and the rehearing jurisdiction removes that as a viable ground of appeal.