New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reviewability of administrative decision

Legal area

Court

8 May 2017

McLay v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care ARCI Act 1992)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 57
Court

District Court

The 3 May 2011 letter was not a new reviewable decision but a confirmation of prior 1993/1995 decisions and did not accept any error or substitute a fresh decision under s390; accordingly the appellant cannot challenge attendant care entitlements for June 1993–June 1995 and the CPI Regulations do not permit retrospective payments prior to a request and agreement to a social rehabilitation programme; appeal dismissed.
10 Jul 2015

Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 196
Court

District Court

The 4 November 2004 letter revoked the Corporation's 10 December 2003 decision and therefore constituted a reviewable decision; however, under the 2001 Act the proper remedy following revocation was recommencement of the reassessment process (sections 108 and 109 IPRC Act 2001) and not a deemed decision under the 1998 Act, so although the reviewer’s decision was set aside, the Corporation’s revocation and proposal to reassess were confirmed.
23 Aug 2013

Vos v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 268
Court

District Court

The requirement in the 9 November 2011 letter to attend vocational independence assessments was a procedural step and not a "decision" as defined by s6 for purposes of s134; therefore the Reviewer's refusal to review and the District Court lack jurisdiction to review that letter. The appeal is dismissed. Decisions to suspend entitlements following refusal or adverse entitlement determinations after assessment remain reviewable.
23 Apr 2009

Mitchell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 66
Court

District Court

The 13 June 2007 letter was an administrative explanation reiterating the preexisting District Court determination and did not constitute a new decision under s6; the 22 February 2007 approvals were limited to facilitating left knee rehabilitation and did not reinstate right knee entitlements; consequently the reviewers and this Court had no basis to overturn prior determinations and the appeals fail.
29 Apr 2005

McNicol v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 136
Court

District Court

The 1 July 2003 letter was only a confirmation of earlier decisions and not a new reviewable decision; the issues the appellant seeks to relitigate were finally determined by Judge Beattie and confirmed by Justice Heath, and are therefore barred by issue estoppel/res judicata; the respondent's affidavit satisfied disclosure obligations under s154 and no further discovery was warranted; appeal dismissed.
17 Jul 2003

Donaldson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 153
Court

District Court

The 12 November 2001 letter was a 'decision' within s13(b) because it determined that ACC would not provide entitlements for the earlier period (pre‑21 October 1997); the reviewer erred in declining jurisdiction, so the review decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh review on the substantive question whether ACC can pay arrears predating the written application date.
27 Mar 2003

W v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 47
Court

District Court

Although agreement to an IRP constitutes a decision under clause 9(1), an IRP does not grant entitlements and therefore is not a 'decision on the claim' under s.134; accordingly the May 2002 IRP was not reviewable and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

McLay v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care ARCI Act 1992)

Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Vos v Accident Compensation Corporation

Mitchell v Accident Compensation Corporation

McNicol v Accident Compensation Corporation

Donaldson v Accident Compensation Corporation

W v Accident Compensation Corporation