New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remittal to review officer

Legal area

Court

10 Aug 2004

Glasson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 241
Court

District Court

Given the short lapse of 15 days between withdrawal and the signed fresh review application, the availability of additional factual material and authorities on s.135 not previously considered by the reviewer, and the respondent's lack of opposition to remittal, the appropriate course was to allow the appeal and refer the matter back to the review officer to reconsider both the question of extenuating circumstances under s.135 and the merits of the claim.
10 Dec 1997

Shepherd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 253
Court

District Court

Court found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered a neck strain during the lithotomy positioning on 12 June 1995 but that the injury did not constitute medical error or medical mishap under s5; however the circumstances amount to personal injury by accident under s8(2)(a); matter is remitted to the Review Officer to consider cover under s8(2)(a) relying on the Court's factual findings.
19 Jun 1997

Jarden v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 126
Court

District Court

The Court determined the relevant statutory income year for s41 was the year ended 31 March 1994 and that, on the material before the Court, the appellant had not established assessable income in that year dependent on personal exertion; the appeal could not be finally determined on the present record and further submissions or remittal are required.
23 Dec 1996

Brooks v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 155
Court

District Court

Appeal allowed and remitted to a review officer to determine factual questions whether the 1984 C62 assessments were given as written notices under s100 of the 1982 Act; the review officer must be appointed with jurisdiction to determine issues under both the Accident Compensation Act 1982 (including leave for late review under Mcdougall) and, if necessary, review of the 25 July 1995 decision under s67A of the 1992 Act; the District Court will not decide contested factual questions on appeal.
29 Apr 1996

Buckland v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 31
Court

District Court

The District Court held that the Corporation's 9 August 1994 letter was a reviewable decision and that the appeal is allowed; the matter is remitted to the Review Officer to decide whether a s90(9) determination in favour of the appellant exists and, if so, whether the Corporation is wrong to refuse to give effect to it.

New Zealand Case Law

Glasson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Shepherd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Jarden v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Brooks v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Buckland v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation