New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Vehicle replacement

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2004

Doyle v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 270
Court

District Court

ACC's refusal was justified because the appellant failed to adduce objective evidence that the vehicle had reached the end of its economic life or was so unreliable or unroadworthy as to prevent maintenance of independence; the claimant was asked but did not provide a mechanical report and the sale was based on unsupported opinion of unreliability, so the Court will not overturn ACC's reasonable decision.
10 Jan 1995

Wilde v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 2
Court

District Court

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted because the Corporation failed to distinguish normal wear and tear (which can render a claimant eligible for replacement under s 26(5)) from excessive deterioration caused by claimant neglect; the Corporation must reconsider the application by assessing the claimant's rehabilitation programme, whether the vehicle has reached the end of its economic life in light of the claimant's disability and reasonable needs, and investigate any alleged failure to maintain with a view to possible apportionment rather than blanket refusal.