24 Apr 2018
The 16 August 2013 letter was a draft proposal and not a finalised decision because the claimant had not agreed to the IRP nor had the Corporation advised it was finalised as required by Clause 9 Schedule 1; therefore it was not a reviewable decision and no question of law for leave to appeal was raised.
28 Nov 2017
The Corporation's 19 October 2016 letter was informational and did not decide cover, entitlements, delay, or make a decision under the ACC Code; therefore it was not a reviewable decision under s134(1) and the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Jul 2016
The 18 September 2013 letter was not a decision within s6(1) of the Act, the applicant had an available remedy to challenge the 2008 calculation and failed to do so, and the alleged late production of the bundle caused no prejudice; therefore no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was established and leave to appeal to the High Court is dismissed.
5 Nov 2012
The 7 September 2011 letter was not a decision under the Act; therefore the Reviewer had no jurisdiction to review it and the Reviewer's decision was quashed, reverting the parties to the status quo as at 7 September 2011.
30 Aug 2012
The 19 January 2011 letter, read in context of withholding payment, conveyed a decision to suspend weekly compensation and was therefore reviewable; the Reviewer erred in declining jurisdiction and his decision is quashed. In absence of a valid s117 decision suspending entitlement, the appellant remained entitled to payment and arrears until ACC issues an express lawful decision under s117.
4 Oct 2011
The ACC letter of 29 January 2010 was not a reviewable decision within the meaning of the Act; the Reviewer correctly found no jurisdiction to hear the application and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Nov 2008
The 21 July 2008 letter was advisory correspondence in the context of a criminal prosecution and did not constitute a decision under Section 6 of the Act; consequently it was not reviewable under Section 134, and the Reviewer did not err in refusing costs where the review was an abuse of process.
2 Apr 2007
The 2 December 2005 letter merely reaffirmed the respondent's prior decisions and therefore was not a 'decision' under s6; alternatively, even if it were, the appellant failed to demonstrate extenuating circumstances under s135(3) to justify a late application; accordingly the Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Nov 2006
The 11 July 2005 letter constituted a reviewable decision under s6 because it purported to confine the appellant's new claim to an earlier accepted claim and removed the thoracic injury; the Reviewer erred in finding no jurisdiction, so the review decision is quashed and the respondent must reconsider the thoracic claim under the Act.