13 Aug 2019
The Court has no jurisdiction to determine the substantive reduction in weekly compensation because the appellant failed to identify a reviewable decision as required by s135(2)(c) and did not challenge the insurer's decision declining acceptance of the late review; the Reviewer correctly found no jurisdiction and the appeal must be struck out.
27 Jun 2019
The cumulative effect of the appellant's wife's ill health and the appellant's unsettled living and severe financial stress during the relevant period constituted extenuating circumstances under s135(3) that affected his ability to lodge a review within three months; accordingly the late application must be accepted and the prior review and Corporation decisions set aside.
19 Dec 2014
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant did not establish extenuating circumstances under s135(3); his delay resulted from deliberation about whether to seek surgery rather than any inability or trauma preventing him from applying within three months, and the ACC information sheet was not misleading in the circumstances.
7 Aug 2014
No extenuating circumstances existed to require acceptance of the late review: the appellant was informed of the decision and review process, had sufficient English to understand correspondence and hearings, could not show reliance on agents who had the decision or instructions, had multiple opportunities to apply, and failed to explain an approximately five year delay.
9 Jul 2013
The appeal was allowed because the appellant's identifiable personal pressures during the critical period diminished her culpability for a short delay, she had demonstrated intent to seek review and taken steps short of lodging, the lateness was minimal (around five days), and there was no prejudice to the Corporation; therefore the Corporation erred in declining to accept the late review application under s135(3).
6 Nov 2012
The Court held the appellant failed to establish extenuating circumstances under s135(3) that affected his ability to lodge a review within three months from the decision date; the appellant was capable of acting, the wife's oversight and late instruction of an advocate do not satisfy s135(3), and therefore the late application could not be accepted and the appeal must be dismissed.
13 Sept 2012
The court allowed the appeal by consent and directed that the late application for review of ACC's 10 May 2010 decision be sent to a reviewer for determination of the merits; the court did not determine the substantive merits or whether extenuating circumstances existed.
15 May 2012
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appear without reasonable excuse and did not prosecute the appeal with due diligence (no cogent medical evidence, available transport/funding existed, and the 13 August 2007 letter was not a valid review application), justifying dismissal under s161(3)(a) and (b).
7 Mar 2012
The Court found that the appellant reasonably relied on his advocate's clear instructions and assurance that a review had been lodged; the advocate did not receive the May 21 decision and thus did not lodge a timely review; the sequence of events reasonably deceived the claimant into believing a review was proceeding; this constituted extenuating circumstances under s135(3), so the late review application had to be accepted and the appeal was allowed.
8 Feb 2012
There was insufficient evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's hormone treatment caused papillary thyroid carcinoma; absence of informed consent does not relieve the claimant of proving causation; and there were no extenuating circumstances under s.135(3) to justify acceptance of a late review. All appeals dismissed.