27 Oct 2015
The judge exercised discretion on costs given the interlocutory nature of the proceedings, partial responsibility for delay by the respondent, and unexplained disbursements; awarded a modest contribution to achieve fairness and finality.
20 Feb 2014
Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no adequate explanation or affidavit for the four-month delay, the Registrar's decision did not disclose obvious error nor exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of security for costs, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the purported appeal which should have been pursued by review in the High Court.
17 Jan 2012
On the balance of probabilities the most likely cause of the streptococcal flexor tenosynovitis was a trivial, non‑traumatic skin break rather than a definable accident; ACC had a sufficient evidential basis (including specialist microbiology opinion of Dr Everts) to be 'not satisfied' that entitlements should continue and therefore lawfully revoked cover on 14 October 2009.
23 Sept 2008
The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed seven days beyond the statutory 21-day limit under s162(2) and therefore was a nullity; alternatively the District Court correctly concluded the review was an abuse of process and did not raise an arguable question of law.
24 May 2006
The appeal was dismissed because the Corporation never had all information necessary to determine entitlement; therefore it could not be held guilty of unreasonable delay and the claimant bears the primary onus to provide the requisite information.
5 Jul 2004
The December 15 2003 letter did not effectively revoke the September 10 2003 decision because s65 requires the Corporation to have considered that the earlier decision was made in error; the Corporation consistently maintained there was insufficient evidence of deterioration and did not form that belief, therefore the September decision remained effective; the appeal is allowed, the Reviewer’s refusal to decide the September decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to the reviewer to determine whether the September 10 2003 decision was correct.
4 Nov 2003
The court held it had no jurisdiction to revisit how the review was conducted; the only justiciable issue was whether the work capacity assessment was wrong, and the appellant failed to show any error, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
14 Jun 1999
Because the respondent conceded the suspension was not statutory and reinstated payments, the appeal was withdrawn; the Court confined any costs award to appeal-related matters and, balancing conduct and limited work on the appeal, awarded the appellant $1,000 for appeal-related costs.
11 Dec 1997
Because the Corporation requested information within the relevant statutory period (extending time under s66 for medical misadventure matters) and there was no decision of the Corporation capable of review when the 5 September 1995 application was lodged, s66 did not permit a deemed rejection and s90(9) did not operate; administrative processing steps and committee composition are not reviewable under s89, therefore the Review Officer correctly found no reviewable determination and the appeal must be dismissed.
23 Jan 1997
The appeal is allowed because the Corporation failed to discharge the burden of proving the injury was work-related: the review officer's conclusion rested on assumptions and inadequate medical causation evidence, so the decision could not stand; a rehearing was declined as not in the interests of justice given the Corporation's conduct, and costs of $800 were awarded to the appellant.