29 Apr 2016
The appeal is dismissed because it was filed out of time without leave, the substantive entitlement issues are barred by issue estoppel from prior District Court decisions, and the 4 June 2014 letter did not constitute a reviewable decision under ss6 and 134 of the Act so it could not reopen cover entitlements.
13 Oct 2015
Leave to appeal was granted because a mixed question of law and fact arises: whether ACC's confirmation letter of 18 February 2009 was a new, reviewable decision in circumstances where a deemed cover revocation was later quashed and cover reinstated, and that issue could benefit from High Court scrutiny particularly as it concerns application of Waenga and the legal effect of subsequent developments on the reviewability of communications.
19 Dec 2014
Neither the draft Individual Rehabilitation Plan nor the 21 September 2006 email were decisions capable of review under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the draft plan was not finalised or agreed and the email was administrative), and the review hearings were timetabled within s146(1)(a), therefore both appeals fail.
1 Mar 2013
Special leave to appeal is declined because, although there is an arguable point that the ACC's decision to prosecute did not constitute a reviewable decision absent written notice required by s64, the subsequent resolution of criminal proceedings and ACC's acceptance of entitlement rendered the issue moot and not of sufficient general importance to justify special leave.
10 Oct 2012
The 19 January 2011 letter was a reviewable decision withholding weekly compensation effective from 4 August 2010 to 28 January 2012; the Corporation did not validly invoke s117 or provide reasons for withholding, therefore it is bound to pay arrears and the appellant is entitled to costs.
18 Apr 2012
The letter of 7 May 2009 was a reviewable decision under s134(1)(a); Mr Barnes did not himself make the entitlement decision but provided a medical opinion relied on by the Corporation; accordingly the Review decision dated 19 December 2011 is quashed and the matter is remitted to Review for determination by a different Reviewer.
6 Dec 2011
Because the reports advanced by the appellant did not present new medical material or a new diagnosis raising a different question from that already decided, ACC was not required to make a new reviewable decision and the reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction.
13 Dec 2010
Leave to appeal was declined because the 16 April 2008 letter was a non-reviewable administrative re-statement of the Corporation's position (not a new decision under s6) and the fall on steps while at the treatment premises did not meet the statutory definition of 'treatment' under s33; neither issue presented a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument to justify leave.
16 Sept 2008
Because the review application failed to identify any decision within s6 of the Act, the Reviewer had no jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Dec 2006
The Court held that the statutory vocational rehabilitation framework permits ACC to require IOA and IMA assessments and to include vocational steps in an IRP without a separate fresh decision under ss86‑88 each time; the requirement to undergo an IMA when reasonably called upon is lawful and not a matter to which the claimant can object, and the appellant's repeated relitigation of the same point is without merit and dismissed.