New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Eligibility

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2021

ROE v THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2021] NZHC 2952

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2952
Court

High Court

The University lawfully interpreted and applied s 224 and its MBChB Regulations; s 224 confers eligibility but not an entitlement to automatic enrolment in a limited entry programme, the Regulations' once-only Alternative category rule and the exceptional-reasons discretion are lawful, and supplying or processing an application that would inevitably be rejected is not required and would be futile absent exceptional reasons.
14 Mar 2019

X v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 22
Court

District Court

The court directed the appellant to file specific medical certificates for the additional injuries so ACC can obtain a revised whole person impairment assessment; the appeal is left on foot and a resumed hearing is scheduled in six months to allow reassessment to proceed and determine whether the 10% statutory threshold for an independence allowance is met, in which case the appeal will be rendered nugatory, or if not met the appellant retains review and appeal rights.
9 Nov 2017

Peters v Accident Compensation Corporation (Jurisdictional issue and Entitlements)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 134
Court

District Court

The reviewer and District Court correctly dismissed the reviews because the 14 July 2014 letter was only a reaffirmation of the 27 March 2013 decision and not a reviewable new decision absent new material; the claimant did not have cover for a treatment injury so no entitlements (including weekly compensation) could follow; and clause 52 Schedule 1 precluded weekly compensation after 1 January 2008.
3 Oct 2013

Accident Compensation Corporation v SS

Citation

[2013] NZACC 317
Court

District Court

Section 36 (and s21A where applicable) fixes the deemed date of injury as the date of first treatment for the relevant mental injury; entitlement to weekly compensation requires earner status at that deemed date. Because the claimant was not an earner on 21 September 1992 (the deemed date), she was not entitled to weekly compensation and the Reviewer's contrary finding was wrong; the Corporation's decision is therefore confirmed.
14 Sept 2012

Xu v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 309
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Corporation's expert established that the current dental needs derived primarily from pre-existing dental disease rather than the accident, and the appellant failed to produce competent expert evidence to rebut that conclusion or demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying overturning the expert opinion; prior approval requirements also militated against funding.
20 Aug 2012

Fiske v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 283
Court

District Court

The appellant first became entitled to weekly compensation in respect of the relevant causative injury in 1998, which was more than 24 months before she turned 65; therefore clause 52(1)-(2) applies and her entitlement to weekly compensation ceased on reaching age 65. The Corporation's prior mistaken offer to allow continuation was beyond its statutory power and not binding.
2 Sept 2011

Stewart v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 241
Court

District Court

Clause 52(1)(b) does not apply because the appellant was not entitled to weekly compensation for 24 months or longer before reaching 65; entitlement requires current incapacity and earner status and ceased when he returned to work in May 2007; the correct application is to subclauses (6)–(8), so the appellant, having recommenced incapacity after age 65, is entitled to weekly compensation for up to 12 months from 25 March 2010 (subject to election and certification of continuing incapacity).
13 Apr 2011

S H v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 119
Court

District Court

Because the deemed date of the appellant's mental injury was 10 December 2001 and she was on a Domestic Purposes Benefit (not an earner) at that date, she did not meet the statutory requirement to have been an earner at the date of injury and therefore was not entitled to weekly compensation under the Act.
13 Aug 2008

BUNTING AND GARDNER V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2007-404-002317

Citation

openlaw-178eff28_36f7_4b85_b5ff_ae1c55be7919.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 55(1) of the WHRS Act is limited to applications for eligible claims within the scope of that Act; an application found to be ineligible is excluded from the Act and cannot be deemed to have commenced civil proceedings for Limitation Act purposes. Consequently the applicants' High Court proceeding filed 27 April 2007 was time-barred under Building Act s393(2) and the Associate Judge correctly struck it out.
25 Jul 2008

Lungulescu v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

ACC lawfully applied the applicable transport regulations and is not required to pay further amounts because the appellant failed to prove actual taxi costs, the 1992/1999 regulations limit reimbursement to public transport or per-kilometre rates, and the 2002 regulations require prior approval and necessity for actual taxi fares which were not established.