New Zealand Law/Tort

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
{{Template:law}}
{{Template:study guide}}
{{Template:non-formal education}}
{{Template:0%done}}

Accident Compensation[edit | edit source]

Statutes[edit | edit source]

Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001[edit | edit source]

Accident Compensation Act 1972[edit | edit source]

Accident Compensation Act 1982[edit | edit source]

Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992[edit | edit source]

Accident Insurance Act 1998[edit | edit source]

Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000[edit | edit source]

Cases[edit | edit source]

G v Auckland Hospital Board [1976] 1 NZLR 638[edit | edit source]

Walbutton v ACC[edit | edit source]

  • Held
An accident is an event that is not intended by the person who suffers the misfortune.

Donselaar v Donselaar[edit | edit source]

Willis v AG[edit | edit source]

ACC v Mitchell[edit | edit source]

  • Held
There is no need to show that an accident is caused by some external force. (Reversed by s3(a) 1992 Act)

ACC v F[edit | edit source]

  • Facts
Husband sued for depression brought on by wife's injury.
  • Held
While the husband's depression was an unlooked for mishap, the husband’s injury was not the relevant accident and mental injury must accompany physical injury.

ACC v E[edit | edit source]

Facts: E was required by her workplace to undergo a management course by her employer and subsequently suffered suffered mental breakdown.

Held: E was initially turned down for cover under the ACC scheme because it was thought that the scheme only covered mental injury which was accompanied by a physical injury. Court of Appeal overturned the decision, deciding "physical and mental" was to be interpreted generously, to be applied as "physical or mental." This indicates the courts desire to interpret ACC legislation with wide breadth.

QLDC v Palmer[edit | edit source]

McGrory v Ansett NZ[edit | edit source]

Harrild v Director of Proceedings[edit | edit source]

Sivasubramanium v Yarrall[edit | edit source]

Jordan v ACC[edit | edit source]

ACC v Booth[edit | edit source]

ACC v Auckland Health Board[edit | edit source]

MacDonald v ACC (1985) 5 NZAR 276[edit | edit source]

Green v Matheson[edit | edit source]

Polansky v ACC[edit | edit source]

Childs v Hillock[edit | edit source]

Brownlie v Good Health Wanganui (2005) CA[edit | edit source]

  • Held
Non-treatment is as much medical misadventure as negligent treatment

meow

A v Bottril [2003] 2 NZLR 721 (PC)[edit | edit source]

see A v Bottril

McDermott v Wallace[edit | edit source]

Articles[edit | edit source]

Negligence[edit | edit source]

Cases[edit | edit source]

Duty of Care[edit | edit source]

  • Anns v Merton LBC
  • South Pacific v NZ Security
  • Spring v Guardian Assocs
  • Midland Metals v ChCh Press
  • Rolls Royce v CHH

Auditors - Negligent Misstatement[edit | edit source]

  • Scott Group v McFarlane
  • Caparo v Dickman
  • Boyd Knight v Purdue

Auditors - Other[edit | edit source]

  • Price Waterhouse v Kwan
  • Deloitte Haskins & Sells v National Mutual Life
  • Wellington District Law Soc v PW

Council liability[edit | edit source]

  • Anns v Merton LBC
  • Bowen v Paramount Builders
  • Brown v Heathcote CC
  • Murphy v Brentwood DC
  • Invercargill CC v Hamlin
  • Three Meade St v Rotorua DC

Cases v Govt #1[edit | edit source]

  • X v Bedforshire CC (1995)
  • AG v Prince (1998)
  • Barrett v Enfield LBC (1999)

Cases v Govt #2[edit | edit source]

  • A-G v Carter (2003)
  • A-G v Body Corporate (2005)
  • Tai Hobson v A-G (2006)

Nervous Shock[edit | edit source]

  • Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
  • Van Soest v Residentical Health Mgt Unit
  • W v Essex CC

Tort v Contractual Remedies[edit | edit source]

  • Henderson v Merrett Syndicates
  • Turton v Kuslake
  • Rolls Royce NZ v CH

Limitation Period[edit | edit source]

  • Invercargill CC v Hamlin

Nuisance[edit | edit source]

Private Nuisance[edit | edit source]

A-G v Geothermal Produce [1987] 2 NZLR 348[edit | edit source]
BNZ v Greenwood [1984] 1 NZLR 525[edit | edit source]
French v Auckland City Council [1974] 1 NZLR 340[edit | edit source]
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655[edit | edit source]
Hunter v Canary Wharf

Public Nuisance[edit | edit source]

Rylands v Fletcher Nuisance[edit | edit source]

Rylands v Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265[edit | edit source]
Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263[edit | edit source]
  • Facts
An unknown person intentionally blocked a drain on the defendant's property causing water to overflow and damage the plaintiff's stock.
  • Held:

1. An exception to Rylands & Fletcher liability - a person is not responsible for the acts of third parties.

2. Water supply and conveniences are not non-natural uses.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 WLR 53[edit | edit source]
Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265[edit | edit source]
see Hamilton v Papakura District Council
Transco PLC v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1[edit | edit source]
see Transco PLC v Stockport MBC

Defamation[edit | edit source]

Statutes[edit | edit source]

Cases[edit | edit source]

  • Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65
  • Mount Cook Group Ltd v Johnstone Motors [1990] 2 NZLR 488
  • Templeton v Jones [1984] 1 NZLR 448
  • Prebble v TVNZ [1994] 3 NZLR 1
  • Jennings v Buchanan [2005] 2 NZLR 577
  • Lange v Atkinson [1998] 3 NZLR 424 (CA)
  • Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1999] 4 All ER 609 (HL)
  • Lange v Atkinson [2000] 1 NZLR 257 (PC)
  • Lange v Atkinson [2000] 3 NZLR 385 (CA)
  • Vickery v McLean (2000) unreported, Court of Appeal, CA 125/00

Privacy[edit | edit source]

  • Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1
  • TVNZ v Haines (2005), CA 71/04

Vicarious Liability[edit | edit source]

  • S v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 450 (CA)
  • W v Attorney-General (2003) unreported, CA 227/02

See also[edit | edit source]