10 Aug 2016
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant raised factual disputes about the weight and admissibility of medical evidence and the correctness of the suspension decision; the District Court's findings that suspension under s117(1) was justified were open on the evidence and did not raise a question of law under s162.
10 Jul 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to present any question of law: the core issues were factual—no evidence linked the 2012 surgery to the covered injury, no proof of incurring transport or home help costs was provided, and the appellant failed to comply with ACC information and pre-approval requirements—therefore s162 leave could not be granted.
25 Feb 2014
The Court refused the extension of time and, were it required, special leave because the 26 year delay was extraordinary and unjustified, the delay caused likely prejudice to ACC through loss of records and the impracticability of adjudicating decades‑old claims, and the proposed appeal raised no tenable question of law or matter of public importance that would justify allocating scarce judicial resources to a late, fact‑based challenge.
29 Jun 2012
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law capable of being pursued under s162, failed to show that the prior withdrawal was not a deliberate and informed decision warranting reinstatement, and relied on further medical evidence irrelevant to the legal issue; consequently there was no basis to grant leave or reinstate the appeal.
14 Jan 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant's contentions were matters of fact and credibility which Judge Beattie lawfully resolved; no error of law was identified and no arguable question of law arose under s162 to justify High Court consideration.
29 Oct 2010
Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court properly applied the legal test and its adverse findings on the existence of a treatment-related physical injury and causation of mental injury were factual, supported by medical evidence (including psychiatric opinion that the applicant's memories were likely false), and no error of law was identified to justify High Court review.
20 Jul 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court's determination that the applicant was not an earner was a finding of fact based on credibility and evidence; no question of law arose from Judge Barber's decision.
16 May 2006
Clause 8.1 did not constitute an agreement to permit appeals without leave; the alleged misapplication of WACC was an expert accounting/valuation matter (fact/mixed fact and judgment) not a question of law for cl 5 review; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and, even if a legal error existed, leave would be declined on discretionary grounds (weak/one-off point, modest sum, delay).
18 Oct 2004
The application for special leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate arguable questions of law warranting the Court of Appeal's further consideration and the issues were largely questions of fact.
9 Feb 2004
The application for leave was declined because the impugned District Court decision was based entirely on findings of fact—specifically the absence of objective evidence of income to establish earner status—and did not determine any question of law that would justify leave to appeal to the High Court.