New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary funding

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2015

S v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 3304

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3304
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err: the February 2009 SNA was a substantial and comprehensive specialist assessment and there was no cogent contrary specialist evidence or clear error of principle; the contested ACC decision provided flexible, compensatory night-care options that adequately addressed actual needs; the fresh evidence alleging predetermination was neither cogent nor material and was therefore excluded; accordingly ACC lawfully exercised its discretion under cl 14 and the appeal was dismissed.
14 Apr 2011

Carbin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 120
Court

District Court

The Court held the ACC decision approving up to $15,000 was unreasonable and outdated given the passage of time and the appellant's assessed needs; the review decision was quashed and the matter remitted with directions that ACC identify suitable Toyota Corolla sedans no more than five years and six months since first registration and provide the entire purchase price (inclusive of trade-in) to meet the appellant's transport for independence needs.
23 Dec 2009

Dalrymple v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 226
Court

District Court

The Court substituted its discretion on re-hearing, found the respondent gave no adequate contemporaneous reasons for the $12,500 contribution, accepted assessor and case manager recommendation range ($15,000–$20,000), rejected the notion that four-wheel drive necessarily increases cost, and held a fair contribution is $17,500; respondent must pay the additional $5,000 and costs.
4 Aug 2005

Lawson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 236
Court

District Court

On the evidence before the respondent in 2003 (Dr Gilbert’s reports) the occupational NIHL component remained small (approximately 9%) and the additional deterioration was from non‑covered causes; Dr Stevenson’s later report did not demonstrate a greater NIHL or undermine the apportionment. Therefore the respondent properly exercised its discretion under s81(4) and was not required to fund hearing aids for the covered NIHL component alone.

New Zealand Case Law

S v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 3304

Carbin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Dalrymple v Accident Compensation Corporation

Lawson v Accident Compensation Corporation