New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits for review

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2021

SU v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2021] NZHC 2491

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2491
Court

High Court

The application for leave was declined because the applicant's delay in filing was inordinate (many months after the Court of Appeal decision), the reasons for delay (pursuit of recall and further appellate remedies and tactical reliance on Ministerial uncertainty) do not amount to 'special circumstances' under s247, and the merits do not justify extending time given the substituted sentence still met the deportation threshold and judicial review was not the appropriate remedy.
27 Jul 2018

Grant v Accident Compensation Corporation (Application for review)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 122
Court

District Court

The court held that review applications must be made in writing and that the operative reviewable decision was the invoice/notice dated 30 November 2015; the 8 July 2016 email was only confirmation and did not create a new decision, therefore the review filed on 20 March 2017 was out of time and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jun 2017

MARGARET KEREAMA v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 1466

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1466
Court

High Court

Section 391(4) applies only to decisions made under Part 11 after enactment; the 1999 reassessment was a decision under the 1992 Act and is governed by s 89's three month, non-extendable limit, so s 135 does not rescue the 2015 application and there is no jurisdiction to review the 1999 decision.
8 Aug 2016

Kereama v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 209
Court

District Court

The 2001 Act's s135(3) does not operate retrospectively to revive review rights that had expired under prior Acts; the transitional provisions do not require revival of spent rights and the 18 March 2015 letter was a correct non‑reviewable statement of law, so the application for late review of the 1999 decision was out of time and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Jan 2016

Follett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 1
Court

District Court

The reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction because the evidence did not establish extenuating circumstances under s135(3): the claimant was not shown to have been so traumatised as to be unable to consider review rights and there was no persuasive proof that an agent had made reasonable arrangements and then unreasonably failed to act; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
14 Apr 2015

Houghton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 72
Court

District Court

The Judge found that the combination of severe traumatic brain injury causing metacognitive impairment and the simultaneous service of divorce papers amounted to extenuating circumstances of reasonable substance under s135(3), so the late review application must be accepted and the appeal allowed.
19 Dec 2014

Perrett v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 347
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant did not establish extenuating circumstances under s135(3); his delay resulted from deliberation about whether to seek surgery rather than any inability or trauma preventing him from applying within three months, and the ACC information sheet was not misleading in the circumstances.
30 Sept 2014

Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 238
Court

District Court

No extenuating circumstances under s135(3) were established: the appellant had regular contact with ACC, was informed of review rights and time limits, provided no medical evidence of incapacitating mental illness, and therefore the late review application (filed 23 months after the decision) could not be accepted and the appeal is dismissed.
9 May 2014

McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 118
Court

District Court

The 18 March 2013 letter was confirmation of ACC's earlier decision and did not constitute a new decision; Dr Brick's report did not present new medical evidence raising a new question such that s65 revision or a fresh reviewable decision was required; therefore there were no review rights and the appeal was dismissed.
19 Sept 2013

Thompson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 304
Court

District Court

The 22 February 2012 letter was a s236 reviewable decision; it was deemed delivered no later than 26 February under s307(5); the appellant's application was not received until 31 May and thus was made after the mandatory three‑month period in s236(1), which cannot be extended; therefore the review right was lost and the appeal is dismissed.