Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001

• Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001

Accident Compensation Act 1972

Accident Compensation Act 1982

Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992

Accident Insurance Act 1998

Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000

G v Auckland Hospital Board [1976] 1 NZLR 638

Walbutton v ACC

• Held

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

Donselaar v Donselaar

Willis v AG

ACC v Mitchell

• 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

• 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

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

McGrory v Ansett NZ

Harrild v Director of Proceedings

Sivasubramanium v Yarrall

Jordan v ACC

ACC v Booth

ACC v Auckland Health Board

MacDonald v ACC (1985) 5 NZAR 276

Green v Matheson

Polansky v ACC

Childs v Hillock

Brownlie v Good Health Wanganui (2005) CA

• Held

Non-treatment is as much medical misadventure as negligent treatment

meow

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

see A v Bottril

McDermott v Wallace

Duty of Care

• 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

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

Auditors - Other

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

Council liability

• 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

• X v Bedforshire CC (1995)

• AG v Prince (1998)

• Barrett v Enfield LBC (1999)

• W v Essex CC (2000)
• B v Attorney-General (2004) 3 NZLR 145 (PC)

Cases v Govt #2

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

Nervous Shock

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

Tort v Contractual Remedies

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

Limitation Period

• Invercargill CC v Hamlin

A-G v Geothermal Produce [1987] 2 NZLR 348

BNZ v Greenwood [1984] 1 NZLR 525

French v Auckland City Council [1974] 1 NZLR 340

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Rylands v Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265

• see Rylands v Fletcher

Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263

• 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

Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265

see Hamilton v Papakura District Council

Transco PLC v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1

see Transco PLC v Stockport MBC