New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revision of decisions (s65)

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2018

Kriletich v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Lump Sum Compensation)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 42
Court

District Court

No identifiable flaw or compelling expert contrary opinion was established in relation to the assessors' WPI reports; the amended and peer-reviewed WPI figures (7%-8%) fall below the 10% statutory threshold for lump sum compensation, so the Corporation's decisions were correct and the appeal is dismissed; the Corporation validly exercised s65 to revoke and substitute its earlier decision.
19 Apr 2016

Eagles v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 100
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the respondent's psychiatric evidence (Dr Garcia) and concluded the claimant's present incapacity is not caused by the 28 August 2008 incident; ACC was therefore entitled under s65(2) to revoke the prior deemed cover for mental injury and hypoxic brain injury and to suspend weekly compensation; the appeal is dismissed.
15 Aug 2013

Accident Compensation Corporation v Manapori

Citation

[2013] NZACC 254
Court

District Court

The 10 December 2010 letter, viewed in context of the mediation agreement and the subsequent comprehensive medical reassessment, amounted to a 'decision' under s6 because it reflected a considered conclusion reached after fresh evidential material; because the Corporation failed to schedule the required review hearing within the statutory three month period a deemed review decision arose that had the effect of revoking the 2004 vocational independence determination; therefore the appeal by the Corporation was dismissed.
31 Jul 2012

Public Trust as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Baker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

Public Trust as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Baker v Accident Compensation Corporation
Court

District Court

On the facts the Court held that (1) ACC lawfully may revise deemed decisions under s65 and did not misuse that power in issuing revocations after further investigation; (2) the psychiatric evidence of Dr Codyre and, more comprehensively, Dr van der Westhuizen established a clinically significant depression causally linked to the 1986 amputation within the meaning of ss26 and 27, so the revocation of deemed cover for depression was quashed and cover for depression reinstated; and (3) by contrast the evidence (notably hepatologist Dr Gane and Dr Collier) established that hepatitis C and the re…
8 May 2012

Nand v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 157
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the preponderant and higher quality medical evidence establishes the right shoulder condition is degenerative and there is no credible contemporaneous evidence of a second accident; accordingly the Corporation did not err in revoking deemed cover and declining cover under the Act.
11 Apr 2006

Sherson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 86
Court

District Court

The 19 November 2004 letter was a new decision made under s117(3), not a revision under s65, so s145(2) did not apply; when read with prior correspondence the letter contained adequate reasons as required by s64(4)(b); the statutory scheme and expressio unius show that the reasonable notice obligation in s117(2) for suspension/cancellation does not apply to declines under s117(3), and the appellant was on notice from earlier communications (23 September 2004) and prior proceedings; therefore the respondent lawfully declined weekly compensation and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

Kriletich v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Lump Sum Compensation)

Eagles v Accident Compensation Corporation

Accident Compensation Corporation v Manapori

Public Trust as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Baker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Nand v Accident Compensation Corporation

Sherson v Accident Compensation Corporation