4 Sept 2015
The Court upheld the ACC decision: the assessor's conclusions were within the statutory discretionary framework, there was no misapplication of legal principles or demonstrable factual error, and the appellant failed to meet the threshold required to overturn ACC's exercise of discretion; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
17 Nov 2014
The Reviewer and ACC failed to properly take into account mandatory factors in Schedule 1 clause 14, in particular the claimant's age and the unreasonable expectation that family members provide indefinite full-time care; this was an error of law or resulted in a plainly wrong decision, so the Reviewer's decision is overturned and funding for 24 hour care is required.
13 Jul 2011
The Court held the Corporation's decision to provide 2 hours weekly home help was a lawful exercise of discretion: the assessment was supported by relevant evidence, no error of law or failure to consider relevant matters was shown, and the decision was not plainly wrong; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
14 Apr 2008
The assessor did not properly consider the appellant's physical limitations regarding meal preparation; medical evidence (including later reports that relate back) established need for daily meal‑preparation assistance; the respondent's decision of 29 September 2006 is amended to include a daily allowance for meal preparation for the period of that assessment.
9 Feb 2007
The appeal is dismissed because independent, contemporaneous assessments by qualified assessors (March and May 2006), consistent with prior knowledge and statutory criteria, reasonably support the respondent's decision; there is no demonstrable legal error or cogent specialist evidence to show the decision was made on a wrong principle, and transport entitlements are treated separately under policy.
9 Jan 2007
ACC correctly declined funding because qualified assessment did not establish the bed was necessary to achieve rehabilitation or independence gains, the sleep issues were materially contributed to by non-injury-related sleep apnoea, and the requested bed is an ordinary household item not of a type normally provided by rehabilitation providers under s81, so ACC properly exercised its discretion.
6 Aug 2001
The respondent failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with the statutory criteria in Schedule 1 (notably clause 47 and clause 41(4)(f)) and failed to give proper weight to expert rehabilitation advice and the unreasonableness of its proposed alternative; therefore its decision declining the bedroom modification was unlawful and must be revoked and remitted for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.
9 Mar 1999
The appeal is dismissed because properly qualified Assessors conducted the required assessments and found no entitlement to home help or attendant care, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to override those assessment determinations; the correct remedy for the appellant is to seek further assessment if dissatisfied.