New Zealand
In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand--Between Air New Zealand Limited, First Applicant, and Morrison Ritchie Davis, Second Applicant, and Ian Harding Gemmell, Third Applicant, and Peter Thomas Mahon, First Respondent, and the Attorney-General, Fourth Respondent, and New Zeala...
The issue of documentary evidence is given extended attention in a section of the Report headed, "Post-accident conduct of Air New Zealand" which is exclusively concerned with s...
8. Part 8"... plainly kept this significant fact to himself, (he) was to be the arbiter of which documents were relevant. The opportunity was plainly open for Captain Gemmell to comply w...
3. Part 3As to the jurisdiction of the Court in the present proceedings, the application is made solely under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972. Under that Act a decision cannot be set a...
4. Part 4The variation in the computer _after the crew of the DC10 had been briefed_ (as Mr Chippindale realized) is the matter which is mentioned by the Commissioner in paragraph 44 and...
6. Part 6It was not until 14th November 1979 that any question arose about the McMurdo waypoint. On that day Captain Simpson had taken the second November 1979 sightseeing flight to the...
1. Part 1In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand--Between Air New Zealand Limited, First Applicant, and Morrison Ritchie Davis, Second Applicant, and Ian Harding Gemmell, Third Applicant,...
2. Part 2These paragraphs occur in the context of a discussion of the change in the computer waypoint shortly before the flight and the failure to draw it to the attention of the flight...
5. Part 5Some reinforcement for the view that they are under that obligation is to be found in some added considerations. Section 4A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, enacted in 1980 in...
9. Part 9The reasons given by the Commissioner for making the respective orders against Air New Zealand are set out in a passage from the appendix to the Report which is mentioned in thi...