1 Feb 2018
The O'Neill Street property was not the claimant's "home" as defined in cl 12; therefore mortgage break fees relating to that property are not payable. Independently, paragraph (b) of the cl 12 definition is a specific extension and does not include mortgage break fees because they are not expressly listed, so the claim fails on either ground.
18 Dec 2013
The programme deliberately fixes settlement as the terminus of entitlement for red-zone premises; the definition of 'settled' requires receipt of payment by the claimant and receipt by an authorised third party (Westpac acting for the appellants) constituted receipt by the appellants so settlement occurred on 11 June 2012, and the Chief Executive had no discretion under the programme to continue payments thereafter.
8 Oct 1999
Entitlement to weekly compensation must be calculated solely by reference to s41 using the appellant's most recent income tax return; because that return showed a loss and the appellant did not meet the regulation 10 premium/30‑hour threshold he was not eligible for weekly compensation. Transport costs were rightly declined because the regulations only allow contributions for travel to treatment and the Woodville–Auckland travel was for social care, not treatment.
9 Jun 1997
Appellant did not meet the Regulation 2 requirement of having received in‑patient services following initial treatment; therefore she does not qualify as having a 'long term disability' and is not entitled to motor vehicle purchase assistance under Regulation 5, so the appeal is dismissed.
31 Jan 1997
Because regulation 4 requires prescriptions for prosthetic appliances to be made by a registered specialist and Dr J G Pascoe was not a registered specialist within the meaning of the regulations, the Corporation was not permitted to pay the cost of the wigs; appeal dismissed.
28 Nov 1995
Regulation 6's prohibition on funding an aid with a "similar function" must be interpreted in the factual context of the claimant; a manual wheelchair that only enables limited indoor movement and prevents carrying items and external access is not "similar" to an electric scooter that restores outside mobility and independence. Applying s.26's objective, the respondent's refusal failed to account for the scooter's rehabilitative effect and the appeal is allowed.
19 Aug 1994
The regulations' definitions must be read in context; for counselling incurred outside New Zealand the terms 'counsellor' and related referral requirements can be given an appropriate meaning to include a qualified overseas practitioner (Dr Neal Anzai) and the appellant's method of consulting him, so the Corporation may consider the claim on that basis; parties to file further submissions and the court will then give final decision.