3 Oct 2013
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish credible, evidence‑based extenuating circumstances under s135(3) that prevented her from applying within three months; her allegations of threats and abuse were not supported and her discharge two days after the decision and the subsequent near four‑year delay undermine the claimed inability to apply in time.
1 May 2012
No arguable point of law was identified and the applicant failed to demonstrate extenuating circumstances under s135(3) that affected his ability to lodge a review within the statutory three month period; Judge Barber's decision dismissing the late application was not clearly insupportable and leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 Mar 2012
On the balance of probabilities the judge found the appellant's traumatic brain injury and its consequential cognitive impairment, fatigue and medication effects constituted extenuating circumstances within s.135(3) that impaired her ability to meet the three‑month review deadline; ACC's reminders were ineffective given her incapacity, and leave to file the review out of time was granted.
22 Jan 2010
The evidence did not meet the high statutory threshold in s135(3); the appellant was not shown to have been so traumatised or incapacitated at the relevant time that she was unable to consider or pursue review rights, and her access to advisers and contemporaneous medical reports did not support a finding of extenuating circumstances, therefore the late review application properly was declined.
10 Aug 2004
Given the short lapse of 15 days between withdrawal and the signed fresh review application, the availability of additional factual material and authorities on s.135 not previously considered by the reviewer, and the respondent's lack of opposition to remittal, the appropriate course was to allow the appeal and refer the matter back to the review officer to reconsider both the question of extenuating circumstances under s.135 and the merits of the claim.
28 Jul 2004
The appellant was properly informed of the decision, his review rights and the three‑month time limit; his decision not to lodge a review within the time was voluntary after receiving that information and there was no misrepresentation by the respondent about obligations, therefore no extenuating circumstances under s135(3) exist and the late review must be rejected.
11 Feb 2004
Because the decision was made 19 March 2002 but the review application was filed after 1 April 2002, s391 of the 2001 Act brings the matter within Part 5 of the 2001 Act; accordingly s135(3) applies and confers discretion to accept a late application for extenuating circumstances. Appeal allowed and matter remitted for a review hearing to determine extenuating circumstances and hear merits.
12 May 2003
Because the parties agreed there was doubt as to compliance with the time limit in s 368(5) and consented to the proposed outcome, the appropriate disposition was to allow the appeal by consent and refer the file back to the Reviewer to consider the substantive issue.
21 Nov 2000
No application for review of the 23 July 1998 and 16 December 1998 decisions was made within the statutory three-month period; the statutory time limit is mandatory and non-extendable; consequently the Review Officer had no jurisdiction and the appellant's rights of review lapsed.
21 Aug 2000
The three month time limit in s.89(5) is mandatory and not subject to extension; the evidence did not prove non-compliance with s.67(2) on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the late review application could not be accepted and the appeal is dismissed.