New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Administrative review

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2022

MILNER v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2022] NZHC 1631

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1631
Court

High Court

The June panel did not create a legally enforceable commitment to release; the November panel's decision was a lawful continuation of the June panel's concerns informed by updated material and did not amount to predetermination or a 'u-turn'; the review properly considered and rejected predetermination and the reasons given met statutory requirements, so the applications and requests for declarations fail.
16 May 2019

Beets v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 53
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the medical and imaging evidence established extensive pre-existing bilateral rotator cuff and biceps pathology that pre-dated the 4 June 2016 accident and there was insufficient causal nexus between the 2016 event and the surgical pathology; accordingly ACC had a sufficient basis under s117 and the exclusions in s26 to suspend weekly compensation and decline surgery for the 2016 claim; the appeal is dismissed.
28 Mar 2017

Prakash v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation )

Citation

[2017] NZACC 29
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the district court found the reviewer did not err: the body of medical evidence, notably Mr Kelman's reports consistent with other medical advisers, established that the appellant's current symptoms were not causally related to the 17 April 2013 accident and therefore suspension of weekly compensation was lawful; appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 2016

Strong v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 273
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC had a sufficient evidential basis on 2 May 2011 to be not satisfied that the appellant's ongoing symptoms were causally related to a head injury from the 1990 accident; contemporaneous medical records and subsequent neurological/neuropsychological assessments outweighed later retrospective head‑injury opinions, and therefore the suspension of entitlements was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
29 Jun 2016

McLennan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 181
Court

District Court

The court found that on the balance of probabilities the appellant's need for surgery was not caused by the 22 December 2010 accident: radiology near the time of the accident already demonstrated calcific tendinopathy consistent with degenerative change, there is no reliable evidence of a rotator cuff tear requiring repair (no MRI/ultrasound confirming tear), and the treating surgeon's later inconsistent reports undermined his weight; ACC's independent experts and CAP opinion were preferred, so ACC's refusal to fund surgery was correct.
30 May 2014

Bloor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 144
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's ongoing radicular symptoms are causally linked to the covered 2005 neck/shoulder injury and are not wholly or substantially due to cervical degeneration; ACC therefore lacked a sufficient basis under s117(1) to suspend entitlements and the suspension was set aside.
7 Mar 2014

Moananui v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 54
Court

District Court

Court held the appeal was filed late but granted a short extension for filing; the 2001 Act applied so s135(limited three month review period) controlled the review of the 23 April 2002 decision; the appellant formally sought review on 30 July 2010 so no deemed decision arose; the reviewer correctly found no extenuating circumstances under s135(3) and the decision declining the late review was upheld; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
22 Nov 2012

Accident Compensation Corporation v Marsh

Citation

[2012] NZACC 375
Court

District Court

The primary decisions were correct and are reinstated: the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his incapacity was caused by the 2001 covered injury, ACC was entitled to apportion the whole person impairment to 5% for the 2001 injury, and impairments from the 1995 injury cannot be combined with the 2001 injury for independence allowance entitlement.
11 Oct 2012

Utumapu v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 343
Court

District Court

There was a fundamental and unresolved conflict between the SB Consultants' literacy screening (which identified extremely low English literacy and limited numeracy restricting the appellant to narrow subcategories and repetitive tasks) and the VIOA conclusion that the appellant was vocationally independent in generic public-facing roles; the VIOA failed to adequately address and explain this conflict, so the Corporation's vocational independence decision could not stand.
30 Apr 2012

Woolley v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 146
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC was entitled to decline weekly compensation under s117(3) because the appellant was aware of his rehabilitation obligations and the consequences of non‑compliance (telephone warnings and the 25 October warning letter), ACC was not required to obtain an explanation before declining where awareness and warning existed, and the appellant failed to seek reinstatement or give any explanation after cessation.