Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation
The 18 April 2007 letter was administrative in nature and did not constitute a 'decision' under section 6 of the Act; therefore the Reviewer and this Court lacked jurisdiction to review it and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] NZACC 206
- Parties
- Appellant: Tina Perkins; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 149 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / District Court Decision on Appeal From Reviewer
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Review Jurisdiction, Definition of Decision Under the Act, House Modifications Approval
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 Section 149 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / District Court Decision on Appeal From Reviewer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's letter dated 18 April 2007 constituted a 'decision' within the meaning of section 6 of the Act and was therefore reviewable
- 2 Whether the Reviewer and this Court had jurisdiction to review the correspondence
Ratio Decidendi
The 18 April 2007 letter was administrative in nature and did not constitute a 'decision' under section 6 of the Act; therefore the Reviewer and this Court lacked jurisdiction to review it and the appeal must be dismissed.
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. 206 /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. 254/07) 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] This is an appeal from the decision of Reviewer, Mr M J Dunn, dated 25 June 2007, relating to Review Application No. 100955 ] The issue in that Application for Review was said to be a letter sent by the respondent to the appellant dated 18 April 2007, advising the appellant of progress relating to approval of house modifications. 3] In his decision the Reviewer correctly identified that the respondent's letter in question did not constitute a decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act and was merely advising of the respondent's administrative practice in relation to the appellant's housing modifications claim. 254.07 (pg) 2 [4] I am satisfied that no decision within the meaning of the Act was contained in the letter and the Reviewer was correct to identify that there was no jurisdiction to consider the matter under the Review provisions of the Act. [5] For the same reasons as those given by the Reviewer, this appeal is dismissed. DATED this (o' day of Septem ber 2008 M J Beattie District Court Judge 254.07