Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation
Where an application for review does not relate to a decision within the meaning of section 6 of the Act the Reviewer lacks jurisdiction; the Reviewer correctly dismissed the review applications for lack of jurisdiction and the District Court dismissed the appeals.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] NZACC 218
- Parties
- Appellant: Tina Perkins; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under S149 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / District Court Hearing and Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Reviewability, Appeal Dismissal, Duplication of Proceedings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tina Perkins
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S149 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / District Court Hearing and Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Reviewer had jurisdiction under s6 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 to consider the review applications
- 2 Whether certain review applications were duplicative of earlier applications
Ratio Decidendi
Where an application for review does not relate to a decision within the meaning of section 6 of the Act the Reviewer lacks jurisdiction; the Reviewer correctly dismissed the review applications for lack of jurisdiction and the District Court dismissed the appeals.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ROTORUA Decision No. 218 /2008 IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN TINA PERKINS (Al No. 329/07) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD at ROTORUA on 19 August 2008 APPEARANCES Ms T Perkins assisted by Mrs A Stewart. Mr A D Barnett, Counsel for the Respondent. DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] The appellant lodged ten Notices of Appeal from decisions given by Reviewer, Mr M J Dunn, dated 2 August 2007, in respect of eleven applications for review which had been lodged by the appellant. All ten appeals have been given the reference number Al 329/07 by the Appeals Registry. [2] The review applications to which the decisions sought to be appealed relate are respectively: 101935, 101934, 101938, 101940, 101947, 101949, 101950, 102910, 103215, 102124, 103215, 104023 [3] In each of the ten decisions to which those eleven applications for review relate the Reviewer ruled that he had no jurisdiction to consider the matter by reason of the application not relating to a reviewable decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act 329.07 (pg) 2 [4] Indeed, in some instances the Reviewer found that the application was a duplication of an earlier application for review. 5] I have considered the review decisions now sought to be appealed and I determine that in each one of them the Reviewer has made the correct decision, he determining that there was no jurisdiction to consider the application for review by reason of that application not referring to a decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act. 6] Finding as I have that all the review decisions were correct both in fact and law, the appeal to this Court relating to those decisions is dismissed. DATED this 12 day of September 2008 M J Beattie District Court Judge 329.07 (pg)