New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs on review

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2018

Woolf v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Costs)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 55
Court

District Court

The court held that s148(3) permits the Corporation to award costs when it revises a decision after a review application, but entitlement is to the party (claimant) and not to an advocate or company absent a direct invoice from the claimant; because there was no invoice or direct charge from Mr Woolf to his representative, disentitlement applied to the advocacy company not to the claimant, the Reviewer had exceeded jurisdiction by attempting to exercise the Corporation's discretion, and on the facts the Reviewer's award of costs in favour of Mr Woolf will not be disturbed; appeal dismissed.
31 Jul 2015

Baxter v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 225
Court

District Court

s148(3) does not apply to reviews under s134(1)(b) because no antecedent decision existed to be revised; the reviewer correctly applied s148(2)(b) and, on the facts (no evidence of unreasonable delay and ongoing enquiries and reports), the review was not reasonably brought, so costs were properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Dec 2014

Sutton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 345
Court

District Court

The reviewer erred at the first stage by treating whether the applicant acted reasonably as a discretionary matter; that question is one of fact for the Court to review. The Court found reasonable grounds existed and, because referring the discretionary decision back to the same reviewer risked bias, quashed the refusal and directed that the Corporation pay the appellant's reasonable review costs on the usual basis.
21 Dec 2012

Cockerill v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 409
Court

District Court

The District Court confirmed the reviewer did not err: the appellant's review applications lacked factual and legal merit, ACC's requests for further information under section 55 were reasonable and necessary given inconsistencies and the complexity of chronic pain and mental injury issues, the Claimants' Rights Code does not apply to third party medical assessors in the manner alleged, and refusal to award costs was justified.
13 Jul 2012

Dooley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 235
Court

District Court

The District Court found the Reviewer did not improperly exercise her discretion in refusing costs: although ACC's late file delivery mitigated counsel's predicament, the appellant and counsel failed to produce essential reliance-expenditure evidence at the first hearing, did not seek an adjournment when appropriate, and therefore the Reviewer was entitled to decline costs under s148(3)(b).
13 Dec 2011

Van Veen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 362
Court

District Court

The Court found the respondent's decision of 19 July 2005 was correct because contemporaneous GP certificates certified fitness for work and investigator evidence demonstrated the appellant misrepresented her activities (playing golf), undermining claims of incapacity; the later medical reports did not pertain to the relevant time and did not displace the GP evidence, and the reviewer was entitled to refuse costs.
28 Feb 2011

Wootton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 56
Court

District Court

Although the appellant had a pre-existing condition (patella alta and hyperlaxity), the dislocations caused weakening of medial patellofemoral ligaments and the surgery to correct the underlying problem and repair the ligament weakening was sufficiently connected to the covered injury to fall within the treatment entitlement of Clause 2 Schedule 1; additionally the Reviewer erred in declining review costs and costs at review are payable.
2 Sept 2010

Estate of Patrick McGinty v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 149
Court

District Court

The only statutory assessment in evidence was Dr McCormick's 29 June 2007 assessment based on objective February 2007 pulmonary function tests; Dr Kolbe's later supposition about likely further deterioration could not displace the valid snapshot assessment or produce a new statutory assessment; the Reviewer appropriately adjusted for emphysema and reached 44% WPI therefore the appeal on quantum is dismissed.
3 Jun 2009

Corden v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 98
Court

District Court

ACC's decision was upheld because the occupational and medical assessments (including Dr Robb's VIMA) were thorough, properly disclosed, uncontradicted by independent medical or occupational evidence, and the appellant failed to produce clear and cogent evidence that the assessments were flawed or that vocational rehabilitation was inadequate; consequently the appellant was vocationally independent as a Caravan Park and Camping Ground Manager and ACC lawfully ceased weekly compensation.
21 Dec 2007

Kliskey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 264
Court

District Court

The medical evidence shows the 1995 soft tissue injury has resolved and the appellant's ongoing incapacity is caused substantially by pre-existing degenerative cervical spondylosis and ageing; therefore there is no direct causal nexus from the accepted accident injury to current need for social rehabilitation and ACC correctly declined further home help; however the court varied the reviewer's costs award, increasing the other expenses contribution from $35 to $135.