19 Apr 2006
The application for leave was dismissed because the grounds advanced raised factual disputes or were otherwise unsupported as matters of law; Judge Cadenhead had considered and rejected the procedural fairness, misrepresentation and bias claims and his factual findings on incapacity were reasonably supported by medical evidence, so no tenable question of law for the High Court was shown.
6 Jun 1997
The appeal is dismissed because the review officer reasonably found the appellant did not act in good faith and did not sufficiently alter her position in reliance on the overpayments; the appellant failed to discharge the onus under s.77(2) so remission was not warranted.
29 Aug 1995
Given the inaccessible pre-1989 records, the tribunal should assess secondary evidence on the balance of probabilities; the available evidence (injury severity, sister's statement, chiropractor contact, appellant's account of treatment and doctor's alleged statement that ACC would cover it) made it more probable than not that the appellant consulted his doctor and that the doctor billed the Corporation under the bulk billing system; the Review Officer's contrary conclusion rested on speculative inferences and was against the weight of evidence, so the decision declining s147 consideration was…