New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary decision

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2017

McKechnie v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 43
Court

District Court

The District Court concluded that the assessor's in-home needs assessment reasonably took the appellant's pain and circumstances into account, ACC properly exercised its statutory discretion under the Accident Compensation Act, there was no error of law nor failure to take relevant considerations into account, and the court should not disturb the assessor's specialist evaluation; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
5 Sept 2013

Accident Compensation Corporation v O'Mara

Citation

[2013] NZACC 283
Court

District Court

The Court held the Reviewer's consideration of the attendant care levels was within jurisdiction because labels affected entitlement; ACC failed to provide adequate, intelligible reasons linking the Wilson Centre needs assessment to its division of Level 1 and Level 2 hours, rendering the decision unreasonable under s54; the Reviewer's quashing of ACC's decision and direction to reinstate the pre-12 April 2010 attendant care levels was correct and is confirmed; the appeal is dismissed.
8 Feb 2010

Simmonds v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 16
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the specialist medical evidence (notably Dr Timmings) that there was no material deterioration or medical basis to require indirect supervisory attendant care; the respondent's decision was based on a competent assessment and was not an improper exercise of discretion, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
21 Mar 2006

SHIRLEY V WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 10/2006

Citation

SHIRLEY V WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 10/2006
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the approved ground under Rule 29 to determine whether the Court of Appeal should have differed from the High Court's discretionary decision.
21 Jun 2001

Webby v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 156
Court

District Court

Respondent lawfully exercised its discretion: appellant possessed transferable pre-injury skills making retraining unnecessary under the Clause 55 hierarchy; the proposed four-year degree was not likely cost-effective under Clause 56 and exceeded the statutory three-year funding ceiling; no error of law or miscarriage of justice was shown, therefore the decline to fund the course was upheld.
19 Oct 2000

Wood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 274
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Reviewer had quashed the respondent's decision and directed reinvestigation, leaving no extant decision for this Court to review; additionally, vocational rehabilitation decisions are discretionary and the Court will remit rather than substitute its own decision.
28 Jan 1999

Barnes v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 16
Court

District Court

The District Court found the respondent had not properly exercised its discretion under section 23 because it failed to consider required issues; because the decision was discretionary the court could not substitute its own decision and therefore remitted the matter for reconsideration; there was no issue of law warranting High Court leave, so the application for leave was declined.

New Zealand Case Law

McKechnie v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements)

Accident Compensation Corporation v O'Mara

Simmonds v Accident Compensation Corporation

SHIRLEY V WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 10/2006

Webby v Accident Compensation Corporation

Wood v Accident Compensation Corporation

Barnes v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation