19 Sept 2013
The Chief Executive correctly applied the law as stated in Garlick and Osborne by accepting the contractor's producer statement as the best available evidence that the outstanding compliance issue had been resolved; the decision that the built date was 1 May 2000 was a lawful exercise of judgment and not irrational, so the judicial review is dismissed.
23 Mar 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court's decision was grounded in factual findings of prejudice, absence of contemporaneous medical evidence and conflicting accounts of dates and places of injury, and therefore did not involve any question of law capable of bona fide argument.
29 Aug 2006
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional or truly compelling circumstances to justify a direct out of time appeal, there was no arguable question of general or public importance, no appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the Court of Appeal had correctly dealt with the statutory s14 issue regarding timings of the informations.
7 Jun 2000
The court held the actual injury occurred when the appellant's adverse symptoms first became apparent and he first received treatment (8 August 1988 in England); because he was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand at that time s.9(3) precludes cover under the 1992 Act, so it was unnecessary to determine causation under s.5; the appeal is dismissed.