New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deemed decision

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2019

Ali v Accident Compensation Corporation (Deemed Decision)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 67
Court

District Court

The Court upheld the reviewer: AMP lawfully revoked the deemed cover because the medical evidence established Charcot arthropathy related to poorly controlled diabetes was the substantial cause of the foot fractures (s26(2) exclusion), and no deemed review decision arose under s146 because a hearing date had been set within the statutory period; therefore the revocation and suspension of entitlements were justified.
14 Mar 2019

Henson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 21
Court

District Court

The Reviewer had no jurisdiction because the review application did not validly identify a decision or grounds as required by s135(2); therefore the review decision dismissing the application was correct and the appeal had no prospect of success and is struck out.
10 May 2018

Rankin v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 70
Court

District Court

The application for leave failed to show a novel question of law because the High Court has held that revision of a deemed decision under s65(2) does not require the Corporation to establish the deemed decision was made in error, removing the basis for leave.
9 Feb 2018

Carson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 34
Court

District Court

The court found the deemed grant of cover for the January 2010 shoulder claim was made in error because contemporaneous records and multiple expert opinions established a pre‑existing degenerative rotator cuff tear with no reliable evidence of a discrete traumatic event in January 2010, permitting lawful revocation under s65; similarly the court found the June 2012 fall did not materially extend the tear such that a new compensable injury arose and the respondent correctly declined to add cover (s26 exclusion), so both appeals were dismissed.
31 Jan 2018

Nicholls v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Decision Jurisdiction)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 7
Court

District Court

ACC validly revoked the 8 January 2016 decision under s65 after a review application was filed; once revoked there was no decision left to review under s134, and the 13 January 2016 decision, while not revoked, was overtaken by events and rendered moot because ACC had accepted cover for the same condition; accordingly the reviewer properly declined to proceed and the appeal is dismissed.
15 Feb 2017

Harvey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2017] NZACC 14
Court

District Court

The Court found no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument because on the facts the Corporation complied with the time limits in s57 by obtaining and considering additional information within the permitted extension period, so s58 was not engaged; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
16 Dec 2016

Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 335
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the central jurisdictional issue (whether the 1998 Act or 2001 Act applied) had been conclusively determined by higher courts and no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was identified; additionally the applicant's filing sought revision of an earlier decision rather than a claim for entitlements and no legal error was shown.
5 Sept 2016

Jackson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 250
Court

District Court

The Corporation’s 6 November 2013 decision was made within time based on actual receipt (date stamp) and there was no deemed acceptance; the Corporation was entitled to decline rather than extend time under s56 given the information available and no prejudice resulted; there were no extenuating circumstances to excuse the late review; on the merits the evidence showed the carpal tunnel syndrome was more likely longstanding and pre-existing, so the June 2013 fall at best made the condition manifest but was not the cause; therefore both appeals are dismissed.
10 Aug 2016

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 211
Court

District Court

The 3 July 2014 email was not a "decision" as defined in s6 but an administrative calculation consequent on the November 2002 decision; therefore no deemed decision arose from s146(1)(a) non-compliance and there is no basis for review or High Court appeal, so leave is dismissed.
29 Jul 2016

KHAN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 1756

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1756
Court

High Court

Special leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify a question of law or show a reasonable prospect of success; the District Court judges acted within jurisdiction and with independence; prior judgments were final and repeated challenges constituted abuse of process; additional material did not demonstrate that Judge Ongley's decision was contradicted by the only true and reasonable view of the evidence.