Clancy v Accident Compensation Corporation
Because the review hearing proceeded without the appellant and an adjournment request was not considered, procedural unfairness justified quashing the review decision and remitting the matter for a fresh review hearing under s161(2)(c) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] NZACC 325
- Parties
- Appellant: Jennifer Clancy; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Compensation Act 2001 S149 / District Court Decision Quashing Review Decision and Remitting for New Review Hearing
- Outcome
- Review decision quashed and matter referred back for a new review hearing
- Legal Topics
- Treatment Injury, Procedural Fairness, Review Hearing, Quash and Remit, Adjournment
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jennifer Clancy
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Compensation Act 2001 S149 / District Court Decision Quashing Review Decision and Remitting for New Review Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the review decision should be quashed due to the review hearing proceeding in the absence of the appellant and without consideration of her adjournment request
- 2 Whether the appropriate remedy is quashing the review decision and referring the matter back for a fresh review hearing under s161(2)(c)
Ratio Decidendi
Because the review hearing proceeded without the appellant and an adjournment request was not considered, procedural unfairness justified quashing the review decision and remitting the matter for a fresh review hearing under s161(2)(c) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Court Disposition
Review decision quashed and matter referred back for a new review hearing
Orders
- Review decision dated 14 June 2011 by Mr P Barker (Review No. 196459) is quashed
- Matter referred back for a new review hearing pursuant to s161(2)(c) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON No. [2011] NZACC 325 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN JENNIFER CLANCY (ACR 435/11) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] The appellant has lodged an appeal with the District Court from a review decision dated 14 June 2011, which decision confirmed the respondent's primary decision to decline cover to the appellant for a claimed treatment injury. [2] It is the case that the review hearing proceeded in the absence of the appellant and her husband, who was acting as her representative, in circumstances where the Reviewer had not been advised that the applicant had sought an adjournment of the hearing as she was seeking to introduce further medical evidence which had not then been finalised. Apparently it is the case that that advice had not been passed on to the Reviewer. [3] As a consequence of that state of affairs, it was the primary determination sought by the appellant that the whole matter be referred back to a Reviewer for a further review hearing, at which all relevant evidence could be introduced. [4] The Court has now received a joint memorandum signed by the appellant and by Counsel for the Respondent agreeing that in the circumstances of this case, the best 2 course of action is for the present review decision to be quashed and for the matter to be referred back for a new review hearing pursuant to Section 161(2)(c). [5] In view of the fact that both parties have agreed to this course of action, I formally determine that the review decision made by Mr P Barker, Reviewer, on 14 June 2011, and being Review No. 196459, is hereby quashed, and I direct that DRSL, in conjunction with the appellant, arrange for a new review hearing to take place where the primary decision of the respondent will be reconsidered afresh. DATED this 28 day of October 2011 M J Beattie District Court Judge