Public Law

Stemson v. AMP General Insurance (NZ) Ltd (New Zealand)

[2006] UKPC 30Privy Council2006

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Public Law cases →

“Lord Watson said at p 216 that judges sitting in a court of last resort ought not to disturb concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, unless they could arrive at a tolerably clear conviction …”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Stemson v. AMP General Insurance (NZ) Ltd (New Zealand). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Public Law cases

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v DS

[2025] UKUT 168 (AAC)

Ranpariya v Government of India

[2026] EWHC Admin 682

Modi v Government of India

[2026] EWHC Admin 716

Rupert Lowe MP, R (on the application of) v The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

[2026] EWHC 406 (Admin)

Robb Simms-Davies v Southwark Crown Court

[2026] EWHC 337 (Admin)

River Action UK, R (on the application of) v Water Services Regulation Authority

[2026] EWHC 586 (Admin)

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.