New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Jurisdiction to review

  • 13 Aug 2019

    Trego-Makianu v Accident Compensation Corporation (Right of Review)

    Citation
    [2019] NZACC 95
    Court
    District Court

    The Court has no jurisdiction to determine the substantive reduction in weekly compensation because the appellant failed to identify a reviewable decision as required by s135(2)(c) and did not challenge the insurer's decision declining acceptance of the late review; the Reviewer correctly found no jurisdiction and the appeal must be struck out.

    • Right of review s135
    • Notice of decisions s64
    • Late application for review
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Weekly compensation entitlements
    • Accredited employer procedures

  • 31 Jan 2018

    Nicholls v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Decision Jurisdiction)

    Citation
    [2018] NZACC 7
    Court
    District Court

    ACC validly revoked the 8 January 2016 decision under s65 after a review application was filed; once revoked there was no decision left to review under s134, and the 13 January 2016 decision, while not revoked, was overtaken by events and rendered moot because ACC had accepted cover for the same condition; accordingly the reviewer properly declined to proceed and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Revocation of decision
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Mootness of proceedings
    • Section 65 revocation power
    • Section 134 review of decisions
    • Section 20(2)(g) consequential injury

  • 28 Mar 2017

    Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Interest )

    Citation
    [2017] NZACC 28
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the substantive issue of entitlement to interest on back-dated weekly compensation has been previously determined and is subject to issue estoppel; the ACC emails did not constitute a 'decision' under s6, s54 did not impose an obligation to create a reviewable decision in the circumstances, and s58 did not apply; therefore the reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction.

    • Interest on arrears of weekly compensation
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Issue estoppel
    • Definition of 'decision' under s6
    • Section 54 obligations
    • Section 58 deeming provision

  • 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.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Retrospectivity
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Estoppel against statutory bodies
    • Transitional provisions
    • Extenuating circumstances

  • 28 Aug 2015

    Pora v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2015] NZACC 238
    Court
    District Court

    The 3 December 2013 email, which attached technical advice and declined to progress the query, did not make a determinative decision about entitlements under s6(1); moreover the appellant's entitlement had been authoritatively and finally determined by prior appeal and court decisions, creating estoppel and barring reassessment under the 2001 Act; therefore the email is not reviewable and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Definition of decision s6(1)
    • Transitional provisions s365(3)
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Res judicata
    • Estoppel
    • Entitlements calculation

  • 21 Oct 2014

    O'Reilly v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2014] NZACC 269
    Court
    District Court

    No extenuating circumstances were established under s135 because contemporaneous communications and actions show the appellant was able to seek review within three months, could have obtained advocacy, and medical events outside the prescribed period do not satisfy the statutory test; therefore the decision to decline the late review application was correct and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the substantive vocational independence decision.

    • Vocational independence
    • Review time limits
    • Extenuating circumstances
    • Weekly compensation
    • Jurisdiction to review

  • 10 Oct 2014

    Bacon v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2014] NZACC 253
    Court
    District Court

    The reviewer was wrong to decline jurisdiction because the 17 July 2009 letter did not constitute a valid s65 revision nor a fresh decision on different subject matter; accordingly the review decision in Review 146262 is quashed and the matter is remitted for a review hearing while the appeal regarding Review 139708 is dismissed.

    • S65 revision of decisions
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Quashing and remittal
    • Delay in processing claims

  • 15 Aug 2013

    WANG v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2013] NZHC 2059

    Citation
    [2013] NZHC 2059
    Court
    High Court

    The IPT has jurisdiction under s 202(d) to determine whether the relevant visa conditions were in fact imposed and therefore whether they were met or breached; accordingly s 249(1) (in its pre-2013 form) operates to preclude the High Court from hearing the plaintiffs' judicial review until after the IPT has determined the related appeals; s 249 delays rather than ousts judicial review and does not inherently breach NZBORA s 27(2).

    • Deportation
    • Jurisdiction to review
    • Restriction on review (s 249)
    • Appeal to immigration and protection tribunal
    • Nzbora s27(2)

  • 13 Jun 2012

    Kaulima v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 192
    Court
    District Court

    The court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the substantive correctness of the 24 March 2009 primary decision because the statutory review procedure and time limits were not complied with and no extension of time was granted; however the judge identified a potential failure of the 24 March notice to satisfy s64 and therefore directed further submissions before finally determining the leave application.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Time limits for review
    • S64 notice requirements
    • Extension of time/extenuating circumstances
    • Jurisdiction to review

  • 21 Mar 2012

    Kaulima v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 88
    Court
    District Court

    The 1 September 2009 letter was an explanatory clarification of the earlier 25 March 2009 decision and did not alter or substitute that decision or the appellant's entitlements; therefore it was not a fresh 'decision' within the meaning of the Act and the Reviewer and this Court lacked jurisdiction to review it, so the appeal is dismissed.

    • Reviewability of administrative communications
    • Definition of 'decision' under statute
    • Time limits for review
    • Abatement calculation
    • Weekly compensation entitlement
    • Jurisdiction to review