9 Feb 2010
On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the unchallenged evidence of the case manager corroborated by Pathway Notes and the electronic decision letter as satisfying s64; therefore there was no failure of notice and no extenuating circumstance under s135(3) to permit acceptance of the late review application; the appeal is dismissed.
30 May 2008
The failure to notify the claimant of his right to review the 2002 IRP did not have a significant practical consequence given the medical evidence and subsequent opportunities to seek review and appeal; and there was no breach of natural justice in not providing a separate opportunity to comment on the medical assessment prior to the vocational independence determination because no statute or common law principle required such a step and the review/appeal process was available to address any prejudice.
22 Mar 2005
The 29 March 2004 letter merely required a further Initial Occupational Assessment as part of the Corporation's statutory vocational rehabilitation procedure and did not decide cover or entitlements; therefore it was not a "decision" within s6 and the Reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 Sept 2003
Leave to appeal was refused on the delegation issue because the court held the matter involved findings of fact by the primary judge and not a question of law. Leave to appeal was granted on the narrower issue of statutory interpretation: whether agreeing to an Individual Rehabilitation Plan constitutes a 'decision' under s13 and Part 6, thereby attracting a right of review and notice obligations under s72(4)(c).
5 Aug 2003
Leave to appeal was refused on the delegation issue because the written delegation agreement and statutory provisions (s329 and Schedule 6 clause 25) established AON's authority; leave was granted on the IRP review-rights issue because it raises mixed questions of fact and law and is suitable for determination by the High Court.
15 Apr 2003
Because the decision under review was made before 1 April 2002, transitional s.391 preserves the review regime of the Accident Insurance Act 1998; s.136(2)(b) of that Act requires a review application within three months with no power to extend, therefore an application lodged outside three months does not create a subsisting right of review and the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the substantive entitlement.
10 Feb 1999
The Review Officer lacked jurisdiction because no reviewable decision under s89 had been made by the respondent: the employer had accepted the injury on the work injury report, the respondent had no need to issue a fresh determinative decision under s65(6), any later purported acceptance or attribution was either unnecessary or time-barred, and attribution for experience rating could not be reviewed before an ERA was issued; accordingly the Review Officer's decision is revoked and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jan 1999
Because s89(5) mandates a three‑month limit for review applications and contains no power to extend that limit, the Corporation was correct to decline the late review applications and the underlying decisions stand; the appeal is dismissed.