10 May 2019
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate that Judge Walker's detailed findings were 'so unsupportable' as to amount to an error of law under the Bryson standard; the District Court had lawfully conducted a de novo hearing as sought by the applicant, and discretionary factors including judicial resources and finality did not justify granting leave.
27 Mar 2018
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.
29 Jan 2016
Reviewer correctly applied the Accident Compensation Act 2001; because the Corporation issued a decision on the appellant's claim in June 2006 the delay remedy under s134(1)(b) was not available and dismissal of the review was correct.
20 Nov 2012
The Reviewer correctly concluded the 19 August 2011 letter was not a reviewable decision and lacked jurisdiction to reopen issues already finally determined by prior court decisions; there was no new evidence to alter the established December 2004 commencement date for interest, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 Nov 2012
The 7 September 2011 letter was not a decision under the Act; therefore the Reviewer had no jurisdiction to review it and the Reviewer's decision was quashed, reverting the parties to the status quo as at 7 September 2011.
18 Oct 2012
Clause 54(1)(b)(ii) requires a claimant to be alive when assessed under Clause 59; the deceased died before cover and assessment could occur, therefore as a matter of law he could not be entitled to lump sum compensation and the appeal is dismissed.
8 Feb 2012
Because the assessor reasonably concluded the claimant did not give genuine informed consent and the claimant unreasonably refused to participate in rehabilitation, ACC was entitled under ss72 and 117 to decline weekly compensation; additionally the Reviewer's dismissal of the OIA-related application was correct because the correspondence did not constitute a 'decision' within s6 and therefore was not reviewable.
17 Aug 2010
The Court confirmed the reviewer lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the modifying decision in the appeal but, in the interests of justice, directed under s161(2)(c) that the respondent arrange a new review hearing to consider the substantive issue arising from the 15 January 2010 decision; the appeal against the suspension decision of 30 September 2009 was dismissed as the appellant did not challenge cessation from that date.
29 Mar 2010
Because the issue of medical error had been previously determined in review proceedings and subsequently by the District Court (Decision 40/09), the Reviewer had no jurisdiction to reconsider medical error; the only live issue (medical mishap) was not pursued by the appellant and the appellant failed to show cause to keep the appeal alive, so the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under s161(3)(b).
14 Jan 2010
Leave to appeal was refused because the procedural complaints lacked merit: the Reviewer had properly identified and considered the 8 February 2007 decision, the appellant was not taken by surprise, any procedural defect was or could be cured by the District Court de novo rehearing, and ACC's finalisation of the IRP on 8 February 2007 was reasonable under s80 of the Act.