29 Jun 2018
The Court dismissed all 46 review appeals and awarded ACC costs of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements because the appeals lacked the required particularity, were largely without merit, caused unnecessary expense and amounted to an abuse of process justifying an elevated costs award.
1 May 2012
The court applied the principle that extenuating circumstances under s135(3) must have affected the claimant's ability to meet the statutory three-month time limit and thus must relate to events within that period; on the facts there was no evidence the appellant instructed his mother to lodge a review within three months and no evidence of incapacity within the period, but there is a question of law whether courts should consider a wider range of circumstances beyond the statutory examples, so leave to appeal on that question of law is granted.
21 Oct 2011
Under s.135(3) the court must accept a late review only if extenuating circumstances affected the claimant's ability to comply with the three month limit; the appellant failed to demonstrate such circumstances (waiting for a Police file and prior trauma did not, in the relevant period, affect his ability to lodge the review), therefore ACC was correct to decline the late application.
8 Oct 2010
The judge found no extenuating circumstances under s135(3): communications showed the mother sought explanation and reconsideration but not an instruction to lodge a review within three months; review rights and time limits were notified; the decision to pursue review occurred after the statutory period, so ACC correctly declined to accept the late application and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jul 2007
The appeal was allowed because the appellant's dysthymic disorder and pain-related psychological distress materially affected her ability to meet the three-month review deadline and, given the very short delay of a few days after expiry, proportionality and fairness required ACC to accept the late application under s135(3).
14 Apr 2004
Appeal dismissed because appellant failed to demonstrate extenuating circumstances that affected his ability to meet the three-month review time limit; ACC's advice was not incorrect or misleading such that it prevented timely application, and the reviewer correctly concluded there was no jurisdiction to hear the late review application.
15 Sept 1998
Section 89(5) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 does not confer a discretion to accept or file review applications after the three month time limit; accordingly an application made outside that period is not competent and the appeal must be dismissed.
10 Mar 1997
Section 89 does not permit a representative other than the representative of a deceased claimant to lodge a review as of right; the Corporation's acceptance of advocate-signed reviews is an administrative convenience which relies on claimant authorisation, and because the appellant's 11 March 1996 letter revoked the advocate's authority in respect of the motor vehicle claim and that revocation was not withdrawn, the advocate had no authority to lodge the review and the Review Officer's decision was correct.