8 Oct 2019
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed an approved question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal, holding that the leave question should cover all issues for consideration and directing procedural steps to obtain Employment Authority materials.
6 Sept 2019
The Authority and the BRC erred in limiting the scope of review and appeal to events after 3 October 2008; the appellant's request, properly construed, sought review of all underlying decisions that produced the calculated debt and included matters before that date, and the BRC should have considered any out-of-time review request under s10A(1B)(b); accordingly the case must be remitted to the Authority to decide the appeal on the merits including pre-2008 inputs.
16 Apr 2018
Petromont's internal review was properly characterised as a s63(11) review commenced in 1997 (s63 remained in force until 1 October 2001); s329 does not create a right of review but validates prior decisions and only saves from validation decisions that were the subject of court proceedings or timely review requests at commencement; pre-1 October 1992 decisions are validated by s329 and Petromont's concluded 1993 judicial review does not exempt those decisions from validation; the Ministry did not err in limiting the review to decisions between 1 October 1992 and 1 October 1996; the question…
15 Apr 2017
The District Court concluded that the assessor's in-home needs assessment reasonably took the appellant's pain and circumstances into account, ACC properly exercised its statutory discretion under the Accident Compensation Act, there was no error of law nor failure to take relevant considerations into account, and the court should not disturb the assessor's specialist evaluation; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
29 Jul 2016
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish the elements of treatment injury under s32(1): there is no proven personal injury caused by treatment distinct from pre-existing conditions; the Drug and Alcohol counsellor was not shown to be a registered health professional providing treatment under the Act; the reported effects of Tramadol were ordinary and recognized side effects and unsupported by specialist medical evidence.
20 Feb 2014
The appeal was dismissed because the assessor permissibly postponed assessment pending the claimant's recovery and stability after wrist surgery and there was no evidential or legal basis to order retrospective staged assessments; moreover the appellant had not shown ACC unreasonably delayed and procedural requirements for lump sum claims were not satisfied, confining the appeal to the original assessment scope.
28 Oct 2004
The Court's jurisdiction on appeal under s149 is confined to the correctness of the ACC primary decision of 13 September 2001; because ACC's medical evidence established the appellant's continuing problems were due to a pre-existing degenerative condition not attributable to the 1996 injury, suspension of entitlements was lawful and the Court could not make a primary finding about a separate 1984 injury not previously decided by ACC.
16 Sept 2004
The appeal was dismissed because the District Court's jurisdiction under s149 is limited to rehearing the review decision before it (the 27 February 2004 decision that the Reviewer lacked jurisdiction); the Court could not adjudicate the substantive entitlement issue and the appellant must lodge a fresh claim for entitlements supported by medical evidence which the respondent must consider as a primary decision.
14 Dec 2000
The Court held that the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction to make findings 2 (no undisclosed income from other companies) and 5 (continuing incapacity to the date of review) because those findings addressed matters that were not decisions of the Corporation and therefore were not reviewable; the only reviewable decision in the 2 October 1997 letter was the quantum of the overpayment, and findings that related to disclosed items relevant to that overpayment (findings 1, 3 and 4) remained within the Review Officer's jurisdiction.
6 Apr 2000
The District Court directed remittal under s164(2)(c) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 for a de novo review of the appellant's entitlement considering the totality of injuries (1985 and 1989) and permitted both parties to adduce further medical evidence.