All by Edison Tam Lawyers
Successful challenge to Immigration Minister’s decision to decline to grant a residence class visa, as an exception to instructions, following the Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s recommendation (Zhang v Minister of Immigration).
In a decision that received widespread international media attention, the UK Supreme Court ruled in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 that a decision to prorogue (i.e. suspend) the UK Parliament for five weeks was unlawful. We discuss the decision and pose the question - could this have implications for New Zealand?
The High Court interpreted the meaning of “ordinary consequence” of treatment in ACC v Ng [2018] NZHC 207, an important determinant of cover for treatment injury.
The Accident Compensation Act provides cover for personal injuries caused by medical treatment, such as surgery, in certain circumstances. The treatment must be by a registered health professional. The personal injury must be caused by the treatment, and must not be a “necessary part, or ordinary consequence” of the treatment, taking into account all the circumstances of the treatment including the person’s underlying health condition. For example, a stroke may be a risk of surgery for a brain aneurysm, but if it occurs, was it an “ordinary consequence” of treatment?
The extent of cover for disease under the Accident Compensation Scheme may be wider than you think. The original legislation of 1972, provided cover for personal injury caused by accident, but excluded personal injury caused “exclusively” by disease, infection, or the ageing process. It also included cover for diseases arising out of employment.
The ACC Scheme has never been expanded to provide comprehensive protection for disease, but the general principle continues to be qualified.
Did you know that a decision made by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) which is chaired by a District Court Judge can be overruled by the Minister of Immigration?
