Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was withdrawn because the subject matter was not a 'decision' within section 6 of the Act and the appellant expressly requested withdrawal, which the court allowed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] NZACC 213
- 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- Appeal Under Section 149 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Withdrawn at Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal withdrawn at the request of the appellant
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Appeal, Definition of Decision Under Section 6, Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals
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Appeal Under Section 149 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Withdrawn at Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matter constituted a 'decision' within the meaning of section 6 of the Act
- 2 Whether the appeal could proceed in the absence of a qualifying decision
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was withdrawn because the subject matter was not a 'decision' within section 6 of the Act and the appellant expressly requested withdrawal, which the court allowed.
Court Disposition
Appeal withdrawn at the request of the appellant
Orders
- Appeal withdrawn at the request of the appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ROTORUA Decision No. 213 /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. 388/07) 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] At the hearing before me the appellant acknowledged that the issue sought to be raised was not a decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act, and requested that the appeal be withdrawn. [2] Accordingly, this appeal is withdrawn at the request of the appellant. DATED this 10 day of September 2008 M J Beattie District Court Judge 388.07 (pg)