New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel against statutory bodies

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2017

Kereama v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 13
Court

District Court

No arguable question of law justified High Court leave: established authority and statutory scheme preclude retrospective creation of review rights under the 2001 Act for decisions made under the 1992/1998 Acts; the 18 March 2015 communication was a statement of ACC's legal view, not a reviewable decision, the reviewer and District Court correctly held there was no jurisdiction to entertain the 2015 late application, and therefore leave to appeal was refused.
19 Mar 2014

Hughes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 57
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC correctly treated the company payments as remuneration for the 2004-05 year (supported by the accountants' advice and company accounts) and therefore correctly abated weekly compensation; appellant did not receive the back payment in good faith given the contemporaneous accounting treatment and his failure to disclose ongoing remuneration, and in any event his payments to the company were voluntary advances that did not establish the causal, irreversible alteration of position required by s251(2); estoppel against ACC did not apply. Appeal dismissed.
9 Jul 1998

Farrell v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 149
Court

District Court

Section 142 unequivocally limits entitlement to weekly compensation to the earlier of 30 June 1997 or the ACC 1982 cessation date; s.67A cannot be used to extend or create entitlement beyond the explicit statutory limits and estoppel cannot compel the respondent to make payments it is not statutorily authorised to make, therefore the respondent's decision to cease payments on 30 June 1997 was correct.
10 Mar 1998

Terzaghi v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 38
Court

District Court

Section 142(1) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 required cessation of the appellant's weekly compensation at the close of 30 June 1997 (the earlier operative event); the Corporation had no statutory power to continue payments beyond that date and estoppel cannot override clear statutory provisions, therefore the Review Officer's decision was correct.

New Zealand Case Law

Kereama v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hughes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Farrell v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Terzaghi v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation