9 May 2019
Because ACC revoked its original decision before the review hearing, there was no longer a live issue for the Court to determine; accordingly the appeal was struck out. The appellant's non-attendance and problematic service reinforced procedural grounds for dismissal, but the dispositive legal point was absence of jurisdiction once the decision was revoked.
31 Jan 2018
ACC validly revoked the 8 January 2016 decision under s65 after a review application was filed; once revoked there was no decision left to review under s134, and the 13 January 2016 decision, while not revoked, was overtaken by events and rendered moot because ACC had accepted cover for the same condition; accordingly the reviewer properly declined to proceed and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Nov 2017
Because the Corporation formally revoked the 14 May 2008 suspension by letter of 29 November 2016 reinstating entitlements, the underlying decision and the related review decision ceased to have effect so there was no substantive or jurisdictional basis on which the District Court appeal could proceed; the applicant did not establish a question of law warranting leave to appeal to the High Court.
6 Dec 2016
Because ACC revoked its 14 May 2008 decision under s65 ACC 2001, the review decision ceased to have effect and the Court had no jurisdiction to continue the appeal; the appeal is dismissed.
25 Nov 2016
The strike out application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the original 14 May 2008 suspension decision had been revoked; consequently a live controversy remains and the appeal must proceed to hearing; the Corporation is to notify the Court if it formally revokes that decision, in which case the appeal would not be able to proceed.
18 Aug 2016
On the balance of probabilities the District Court accepted the treating and operating surgeon's evidence that the appellant sustained an acute traumatic avulsion of the left abductor tendons in the 8 September 2014 accident; ACC failed to rebut that evidence adequately despite imaging showing some chronic change, and therefore ACC must fund the surgery and related entitlements.
10 Jul 2015
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.
17 Jan 2007
The Reviewer's findings were correct: the suspension decision had been revoked leaving nothing to review, and the meeting produced no written decision within s6 of the Act so there was no reviewable decision; consequently the Reviewer lacked jurisdiction and the appeal fails.
15 Mar 2006
The respondent had revoked the decision prior to review and, after being informed that the appeal could not secure the entitlements sought, the appellant elected to withdraw the appeal; accordingly the appeal was withdrawn and not determined on the merits.
5 Jul 2004
The December 15 2003 letter did not effectively revoke the September 10 2003 decision because s65 requires the Corporation to have considered that the earlier decision was made in error; the Corporation consistently maintained there was insufficient evidence of deterioration and did not form that belief, therefore the September decision remained effective; the appeal is allowed, the Reviewer’s refusal to decide the September decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to the reviewer to determine whether the September 10 2003 decision was correct.