New Zealand Law/Tort

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

Contents

Accident Compensation[edit]

Statutes[edit]

Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001[edit]

Accident Compensation Act 1972[edit]

Accident Compensation Act 1982[edit]

Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992[edit]

Accident Insurance Act 1998[edit]

Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000[edit]

Cases[edit]

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

Walbutton v ACC[edit]

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

Donselaar v Donselaar[edit]

Willis v AG[edit]

ACC v Mitchell[edit]

  • 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]

  • 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]

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]

McGrory v Ansett NZ[edit]

Harrild v Director of Proceedings[edit]

Sivasubramanium v Yarrall[edit]

Jordan v ACC[edit]

ACC v Booth[edit]

ACC v Auckland Health Board[edit]

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

Green v Matheson[edit]

Polansky v ACC[edit]

Childs v Hillock[edit]

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

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

meow

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

see A v Bottril

McDermott v Wallace[edit]

Articles[edit]

Negligence[edit]

Cases[edit]

Duty of Care[edit]

  • 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]

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

Auditors - Other[edit]

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

Council liability[edit]

  • 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]

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

Cases v Govt #2[edit]

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

Nervous Shock[edit]

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

Tort v Contractual Remedies[edit]

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

Limitation Period[edit]

  • Invercargill CC v Hamlin

Nuisance[edit]

Private Nuisance[edit]

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

Public Nuisance[edit]

Rylands v Fletcher Nuisance[edit]

Rylands v Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265[edit]
Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263[edit]
  • 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]
Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265[edit]
see Hamilton v Papakura District Council
Transco PLC v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1[edit]
see Transco PLC v Stockport MBC

Defamation[edit]

Statutes[edit]

Cases[edit]

  • 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]

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

Vicarious Liability[edit]

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

See also[edit]