5 May 2022
An applicant whose legal representation is funded by a third party can be entitled to an award of costs under s148 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; the historic requirement that the applicant have potential liability to pay counsel is not determinative and courts should determine entitlement on the substance of the funding arrangements consistent with the statute and regulations.
1 Aug 2019
The reviewer's decision to decline the claimed costs was correct: the submission was prepared and lodged by a family-member representative and not shown to be a qualifying specialist report; there was no evidence the appellant incurred liability for the invoiced amount; accordingly the Regulations do not permit the award claimed and the only applicable prescribed item (lodgement fee) appeared already met, so no further costs were payable.
15 Feb 2018
Under Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 of the Accident Compensation (Review Costs and Appeals) Regulations 2002, costs for representation are payable to the representative when properly claimed; the reviewer correctly awarded $545.42 to the representative (Mr Cadenhead) and the appellant's subsequent withdrawal did not invalidate that entitlement, therefore the award was proper and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Dec 2017
The appeal is allowed in part: the statutory Review Costs Regulations apply to costs for the period up to withdrawal (award of the statutory maximum was proper), but fairness and the evidence of continued legal work after withdrawal (11 December 2016 to 28 February 2017) meant the applicant was entitled to a contribution to legal costs for that second stage; the applicant must provide a breakdown to the Corporation for assessment and the parties are to agree any appeal costs.
31 Mar 2015
The court found the Corporation's earnings figures were correct and that $867.32 was overpaid; the appellant intentionally contributed to the overpayment by failing to notify ACC of his earnings and did not demonstrate he altered his position in reliance on the payments, therefore s 251(2) does not bar recovery and ACC is entitled to recover the sum; the first review decision is modified only to award travel disbursement for a 100 km round trip.
19 Dec 2014
The Accident Compensation Act 2001 and the Review Costs Regulations permit only one set of review costs per discrete review application and limit awards to the items and maxima listed in Schedule 1; a review that considers multiple decisions does not entitle the applicant to multiple separate cost awards; appeal dismissed and no costs ordered.
21 Aug 2013
The Reviewer did not misapply the law or exceed the bounds of a proper exercise of discretion in awarding one-third of the claimed disbursements ($50 of $150) given that only a few of over 160 documents were relevant; therefore the District Court will not modify the review decision and the appeal is dismissed.
9 May 2013
Medical evidence established the appellant's incapacity was due to pre-existing ACJ osteoarthritis that became symptomatic and constituted a gradual process injury not caused by the covered shoulder sprain; accordingly the respondent correctly declined weekly compensation and the appeal is dismissed; the Reviewer correctly declined costs.
27 Nov 2012
The Court allowed the substantive appeal: the left shoulder injury was either directly caused by the 21 April 2008 accident or consequential on the accepted right/neck injury; specialist orthopaedic evidence and the claimant's credible account outweighed the BMA opinion lacking orthopaedic specialisation and the contemporaneous record did not defeat causation. Accordingly the review decision and ACC determination of 28 January 2011 were set aside and ACC must provide cover for neck and both shoulders from 28 January 2011. The separate appeal for recovery of alleged advocate fees failed becaus…
10 Oct 2012
The Schedule's specific item for 'other preparation of case for review' sets a single monetary limit for preparation which cannot be extended or repeated, and the 'other expenses reasonably incurred' item is not a basis for awarding additional representation or advocate preparation costs; therefore the appellant is not entitled to further costs for preparation of final submissions and the appeal is dismissed.