New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reviewability of administrative correspondence

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2016

Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 321
Court

District Court

Appeals dismissed because (1) the pain assessment and surgery had already been provided making those appeals moot and not giving rise to a live controversy, (2) the assessed 15% whole person impairment related to a pre‑1 April 2002 injury so no lump sum entitlement arises, and (3) after deducting the prior 8% lump sum payment the remaining assessed impairment (7%) is below the 10% minimum for an independence allowance.
14 Dec 2016

JONES v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 3044

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3044
Court

High Court

The 18 September 2013 letter was explanatory clarification of the operative 17 September 2008 decision and not a "decision" under s 6 of the Act; accordingly it was not reviewable, the proposed appeal raised no question of general principle, lacked merit on its substance (no entitlement to retain WINZ payments plus ACC arrears or to have ACC pay WINZ debts), and did not justify special leave which is refused.
24 Jan 2014

Grimmett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 15
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the Reviewer's decision was correct: the challenged correspondence and administrative actions did not constitute reviewable 'decisions' under s6 of the Act, the potentially relevant deferral issue was academic/moot by the time of appeal, and the appellant failed to properly seek rehearing after non‑attendance.
20 Nov 2012

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 376
Court

District Court

The Reviewer correctly concluded the 19 August 2011 letter was not a reviewable decision and lacked jurisdiction to reopen issues already finally determined by prior court decisions; there was no new evidence to alter the established December 2004 commencement date for interest, so the appeal is dismissed.
17 Jan 2011

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 11
Court

District Court

The 2 June 2009 letter was an administrative confirmation of ACC's earlier 28 April 2008 decision, it did not amend, revoke or substitute any prior decision and therefore did not meet the statutory definition of a 'decision' under s6 and s134 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; accordingly the Court had no jurisdiction to review the 2 June 2009 letter and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jul 2010

Marshall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 111
Court

District Court

The 5 October 2007 letter did not determine any entitlement or claim matter within the statutory definition of 'decision' in s6; it was administrative correspondence about meeting arrangements and support personnel, therefore the Reviewer correctly concluded he had no jurisdiction under s134 to review it and the appeal is dismissed.
15 Oct 2009

Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 174
Court

District Court

The 30 January 2008 letter and the 17 April 2008 correspondence were informational responses about ACC's investigative and operational conduct and did not constitute "decisions" under s6(g) of the Act giving rise to review rights; accordingly the Reviewer correctly found no jurisdiction to review the 30 January letter, the Reviewer's 17 April decision was not appealable to the District Court under s149(3), the Reviewer's appointment was valid under the statutory delegation/contract framework and Crown Entities Act presumptions, and the appeal was filed one day out of time with no justificatio…
4 Sept 2008

Brightwell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 200
Court

District Court

The 8 March 2007 final demand letter was administrative and not a "decision" under s6 so not reviewable; the late review applications were properly refused because no extenuating circumstances under s135 were demonstrated; ACC properly exercised discretion in declining to fund house purchase and in deferring modifications while claimant's residence was undecided; there was no unreasonable delay in processing social rehabilitation entitlements.
20 Aug 2008

Dewe v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 188
Court

District Court

The 5 October 2006 letter was not a 'decision' within the meaning of s6 of the Act; therefore it was not reviewable, the Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction, and the District Court must dismiss the appeal confirming the Review Decision.
28 Jan 2008

Orr v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 22
Court

District Court

The 19 February 2007 letter was an administrative explanation of the status of investigations and not a 'decision' within s6; as at the time the appellant requested weekly compensation there was no accepted cover and therefore no entitlement to decide; quashing the 26 June 2006 decision did not revive the erroneous 29 March 2006 acceptance, so the Reviewer correctly found no jurisdiction to review the 19 February 2007 letter.