13 Sept 2016
The 1 November 2012 letter did not constitute a decision under s6; the subsequent claim merely duplicated an earlier claim dismissed for lack of injury and raised only factual issues; extenuating circumstances are a factual assessment and were not established; therefore no question of law arose and leave to appeal was dismissed.
20 Feb 2015
An authorised determination by ACC's investigative unit (Integrity Services/Fraud Unit) that a claimant is not, or is no longer, entitled to cover or weekly entitlements is prima facie a reviewable 'decision' under s134(1)(a); whether such a decision in fact exists is a question of fact; however s133(5) does not prevent criminal courts from making reparation orders in criminal proceedings and criminal process is not ousted by the Act.
22 May 2014
The decision declining the late claim was a procedural decision made under s53 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 as applied by s354, so Part 5 review and appeal in the District Court applies and the Appeal Authority lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
7 Nov 2013
The 15 January 2013 letter was not a decision within the meaning of s 6 because it merely confirmed prior determinations and did not make a decision on entitlements; s 54 does not impose an obligation that converts such correspondence into a reviewable decision; consequently the reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2012
The 25 March 2011 letter did not constitute a 'decision' under s6 because it did not decide any entitlement, did not manifest a concluded judgment on entitlement, and merely reaffirmed the 3 July 1999 status and advised on out-of-time review; therefore there was no reviewable decision and no basis for a deemed decision under s146.
21 May 2009
The 9 December 2002 letter did not constitute a new reviewable decision because it did not raise a new question of causation distinct from that already determined; Dr Davis' report did not present new evidence on causation but only disputed the nature (mental vs physical) of the same disorder, and the earlier decision had already considered psychological explanations, so ACC was entitled to treat the letter as confirmation and not a fresh decision.
25 Jul 2008
The 11 October 2007 letter constituted a decision under s6 and was reviewable under s134(1)(a) because the appellant advanced new medical evidence asserting materially different causation (total excision rather than coagulation), creating a distinct claim not barred by issue estoppel; the matter must be remitted for fresh review.
8 Mar 2007
The Branch Manager's letter was not a 'decision' under s6 of the Act; consequently the Reviewer's refusal to review for lack of jurisdiction was correct and the District Court must dismiss the appeal for want of a reviewable decision.
24 May 2006
The 9 May 2003 correspondence was merely confirmatory of the Appeal Authority's 28 January 1993 decision and did not constitute a new, reviewable 'decision'; the issues about the correct method of calculation were conclusively determined by the Appeal Authority and are therefore res judicata/subject to issue estoppel, so the reviewer and this Court lacked jurisdiction to re‑decide them.
23 Nov 2005
The Court held that the June 2003 refund was an alteration made under Reg21A(4) to give effect to a final and conclusive review decision and was not a fresh experience rating assessment susceptible to full review and appeal; Regulation 21A bars wholesale reassessment after the 31 March 2000 cut-off, and any alteration is limited to making the existing assessment comply with the final review decision, so ANZ's wider challenge to embedded loadings was time barred and the appeal was dismissed.