New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Jurisdiction of reviewer

  • 10 May 2019

    Beale v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

    Citation
    [2019] NZACC 45
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Question of law
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • De novo hearing
    • Procedural finality

  • 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.

    • Costs on review
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Individual rehabilitation plan (irp)

  • 29 Jan 2016

    Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2016] NZACC 14
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Applying legislation 1998 act v 2001 act
    • Deemed decision under 1998 act
    • Review remedies under s134(1)(b)
    • Procedural delay and remedies
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer

  • 20 Nov 2012

    Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 376
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Reviewability of administrative correspondence
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Interest on arrears of weekly compensation
    • Estoppel
    • Finality of prior court decisions

  • 5 Nov 2012

    Palmer v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 363
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Reviewability of decision
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Transfer of weekly compensation
    • Medical assessment requirement

  • 18 Oct 2012

    Estate of Hollingsworth v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 345
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Lump sum compensation
    • Limitations and time bars
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Extenuating circumstances
    • Statutory interpretation of schedule 1 clause 54

  • 8 Feb 2012

    Dewe v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 37
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Rehabilitation obligations
    • Consent to rehabilitation
    • Suspension of entitlements
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Official information requests

  • 17 Aug 2010

    Thrupp v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2010] NZACC 127
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Weekly compensation entitlement
    • Suspension of entitlements
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Review hearings

  • 29 Mar 2010

    Williams (as litigation guardian of Hirama) v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2010] NZACC 52
    Court
    District Court

    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).

    • Jurisdiction of reviewer
    • Medical misadventure: medical error vs medical mishap
    • Dismissal for want of prosecution
    • Review and appeal process under ipcra

  • 14 Jan 2010

    Nee Nee v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2010] NZACC 2
    Court
    District Court

    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.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Procedural fairness
    • Reasonableness review
    • Individual rehabilitation plan
    • Jurisdiction of reviewer