Taylor v Roper
[2025] NZHC 30
Citation 1
…H COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE WITNESS IDENTIFIED IN [13], [64] AND [65] OF THE JUDGMENT IN [2018] NZHC 2330 AND [93(c)] OF THIS JUDGMENT. SEE PARAGRAPH [107].…
Roper v Taylor
[2023] NZSC 79
Citation 2
…H COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE WITNESS IDENTIFIED IN [13], [64] AND [65] OF THE JUDGMENT IN [2018] NZHC 2330 REMAINS IN FORCE.…
Roper v Taylor
[2023] NZSC 49
Citation 3
(Para 4)
…t those actions had caused Ms Taylor’s PTSD but that there was insufficient evidence that it had caused her anxiety or depression.[3] [2] M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330 (Edwards J) [HC judgment] at [74]–[75] and [77]. [3]At [122] and [125].…
Roper v Taylor
[2022] NZSC 62
Citation 4
…DER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE WITNESS IDENTIFIED IN [13], [64] AND [65] OF THE JUDGMENT IN M v ROPER [2018] NZHC 2330 REMAINS IN FORCE.…
Taylor v Roper
[2021] NZCA 691
Citation 5
(Para 1)
…is home was not a claim for personal injury. Hence it was not captured by the statutory bar in the Accident Compensation legislation. [1] M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330. [2] Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268 [Court of Appeal judgment] per Brown and Clifford JJ, French J dissenting.…
Attorney General v Taylor
[2020] NZSC 152
Citation 6
(Para 5)
…her the Air Force was vicariously liable for Mr Roper’s acts or whether it was directly liable to Ms Taylor in negligence.[5] [1] M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330 (Edwards J) at [74]–[75] and [77]. [2]At [122] and [125]. [3]At [155]. [4]At [171] and [180]. [5]At [186].…
Taylor v Roper
[2020] NZCA 268
Citation 7
(Para 1)
…were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950.[1] The Judge also held the claims were barred by the accident compensation legislation. [1] M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330. The suppression of Ms Taylor’s name has been lifted.…
Taylor v Roper
[2019] NZHC 16
Citation 8
…1 M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330. 2 At [125]. 3 At [155]. 4 This figure is slightly less than that calculated in Mr Roper’s schedule. The difference lies in the allowance for case management conferences. There were three case management conferences. An allowance of 0.3 days is made for the first case management confere…
Reekie v Claimants A and B
[2018] NZHC 2434
Citation 9
(Para 164)
…34 Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 317. Section 6 defines “former Act”. 35 Willis v Attorney General [1989] 3 NZLR 574 (CA) at 576; M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330 at [164], [171]. 36 Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 21. 37 Section 319. 38 Couch v Attorney-General (No 2) [2010] NZSC 27, [2010] 3 NZLR 149 at [178] per…