ACCforum: Judge GM (Gary) Harrison - ACC Appeal Court - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Judge GM (Gary) Harrison - ACC Appeal Court

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:26 PM

FYI Re Judge GM (Gary) Harrison.

It will be interesting to see how many http://www.acc.co.nz judgements Judge GM (Gary) Harrison rules in favour of or dismisses taking into consideration his background with Private Investigators who have worked on contract with http://www.acc.co.nz over a considerable number of years.


http://my.lawsociety...udge-g-harrison


Swearing-in of His Honour Judge G M Harrison


Auckland barrister Gary Harrison was sworn in as an acting District Court judge on 31 March at the Auckland District Court. His Honour Judge Harrison has been appointed with a general warrant and will be based in Auckland for a term of two years.

Judge Harrison was admitted to the bar in 1970 and has been a barrister sole since 1978, with broad experience in all aspects of litigation, but in recent years he primarily practised in civil and commercial litigation. He was one of the counsel appointed to assist the Royal Commissioner’s inquiry into the Mt Erebus disaster and was the Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards from 1996 to 2010.
0

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:29 PM

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2015/142.html

XY v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 142 (12 June 2015)


Last Updated: 18 June 2015

PURSUANT TO S 160(1)(B) ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ORDER FORBIDDING PUBLICATION OF THE APPELLANT’S NAME AND ANY DETAILS THAT MIGHT IDENTIFY THE APPELLANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT WELLINGTON
[2015] NZACC 142 ACR 280/13

UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S 149 OF THE ACT

BETWEEN XY

Appellant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Judgment: 12 June 2015

DECISION OF JUDGE G M HARRISON
0

#3 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 June 2015 - 03:30 PM

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2015/143.html

AB v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 143 (12 June 2015)

Last Updated: 18 June 2015

PURSUANT TO S 160(1)(B) ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ORDER FORBIDDING PUBLICATION OF THE APPELLANT’S NAME AND ANY DETAILS THAT MIGHT IDENTIFY THE APPELLANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT WELLINGTON
[2015] NZACC 143 ACR 158/10

UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT ON A QUESTION OF LAW UNDER S 162 OF THE ACT

BETWEEN AB

Of Napier

Applicant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers at Auckland

Judgment: 12 June 2015

DECISION OF JUDGE G M HARRISON
0

#4 User is offline   Taylor 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-September 15

Posted 27 September 2015 - 09:57 AM

One would have to question how this man even became a Judge with his conduct as Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards from 1996 - 2010.His conduct was most certainly questionable then as it is today. If you so desire to read more, google Bruce Stuart Menteath. Harrison is not impartial and is appalling he is in such a position now. I pity anyone that has a hearing in front of him, where impartiality is a risk.
0

#5 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 27 September 2015 - 10:19 AM

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2015/143.html


The appellant questions whether the Corporation can require a further assessment as a condition for making a single payment.
It appears to me that a single payment is a transaction and not an entitlement.
The Corporation may therefore impose a condition if it wishes. There is no ground for the Court to interfere.




POINT OF LAW...


THE CLAIMANT CAN HAVE 3 MONTHLY PAYMENTS, OR A LUMP SUM....


IT IS NOT A TRANSACTION...


IT IS A RIGHT!!! UNDER THE SOCIAL CONTRACT....
0

#6 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 September 2015 - 04:58 AM

misuse of law

and quoting from the bench....?


thats what the new circuit judges are supposed to be avoiding....but it appears the culture is alive and well...
0

#7 User is offline   Taylor 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-September 15

Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:57 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 28 September 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

misuse of law

and quoting from the bench....?


thats what the new circuit judges are supposed to be avoiding....but it appears the culture is alive and well...

0

#8 User is offline   Taylor 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-September 15

Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:59 PM

This culture is alive and well. MIsuse of the law is something that Judge G M Harrison himself should be charged with. I hope there is Karma somewhere.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users