New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review of administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2015

Guthrie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 400
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to establish extenuating circumstances within the three-month period because she received the decision and an explanatory information sheet and a contemporaneous phone call, medical records showed no ongoing incapacity after April 2012 and evidence demonstrated she pursued CTS treatment in May/June 2012; no adequate, period-specific explanation was provided for the delay, so the decision to decline the late review was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
21 Sept 2015

Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 276
Court

District Court

Although s148(2)(a) mandates an award of costs and expenses where a review is favourable, the award of disbursements under Schedule 1 is limited to expenses that are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount; therefore the Reviewer retains the factual discretion to assess and reduce photocopying/disbursement claims that are not detailed or are excessive, and no question of law arises to justify High Court leave.
27 Mar 2013

Williamson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 87
Court

District Court

The respondent's decision was defective because it failed to decide the appellant's specific request that ACC enter into an agreement with his GP to cover interim prescription charges; the Court cannot compel ACC to enter such an agreement but must require ACC to issue a fresh primary decision addressing that request, and the review decision is quashed.
14 Aug 2012

Bendall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 274
Court

District Court

There was insufficient evidence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the February 2009 accident caused the tibial fracture and consequent need for revision surgery; the respondent's view that a gradual process (osteolysis/varus tilt and stress fracture) was the more likely cause was supported by the timeline and contemporaneous records, so ACC's refusals were correct.
27 Jul 2012

Lattimore v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 252
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the substantive May 4, 2010 decision until the appellant obtained the intermediary determinations under s135(3) confirming extenuating circumstances for the late filing of reviews; those determinations had not been sought or obtained, so the Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction.
24 Nov 2008

Woodward v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 280
Court

District Court

The court found the work trial and medical case review requirements fell within s.72 and were reasonable; therefore ACC was entitled under s.117(3) to suspend weekly compensation for the appellant's unreasonable failures to attend; the fact an earlier suspension was quashed did not taint separate subsequent suspension decisions; the appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse, so suspensions were lawful and appeal must be dismissed.
6 Jul 2007

Humphreys v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 149
Court

District Court

The assessor's comment did not affect the appellant's ability to meet the three‑month review time limit; extenuating circumstances under s135(3) require a causal impact on the ability to seek review (e.g. misinformation about review rights or incapacity); the appellant's delay was occasioned by a later 2005 reassessment and constituted ex post facto reasoning, therefore the Corporation and Reviewer were correct to refuse the late application.
23 Feb 2006

Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 46
Court

District Court

The Reviewer’s confirmation of contracted provider rates was correct on the evidence before the court and AI 585/04 is dismissed; however the 5 January 2005 allocation of attendant care hours was set aside because ACC relied on an assessment that failed to address a crucial consideration (practical rostering to meet Level 2 needs), therefore the prior arrangement of 12 hours at the Level 2 rate remains effective until an adequate reassessment; ACC must calculate back payments and claimant is entitled to reasonable disbursements.
27 Feb 2004

Teeuwen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 25
Court

District Court

The medical evidence established that the bilateral inguinal hernias pre-existed the claimed accidents and were not caused by either the motor vehicle accident of 2 April 2000 or the lifting incident of 20 July 2000; therefore there was no causal nexus under the Accident Insurance Act 1998 and the respondent correctly declined cover, so the appeal is dismissed.
3 Jul 1998

Arthur v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 140
Court

District Court

The Corporation's cancellation of weekly compensation was unlawful because it lacked information to conclude entitlement had ended and could not validly rely on s73(2)(c) where no requirement or IRP had been put to the claimant and there was no established unreasonable refusal to agree to rehabilitation; accordingly the Corporation's and Review Officer's decisions are revoked and the appellant remains entitled to weekly compensation.