New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overpayment recovery

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2018

Hamilton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 30
Court

District Court

The District Court held ACC was entitled to apply s15(3) to post-incapacity earnings (it need only take tax returns into account and is not bound by them) and, on the facts, the tax returns for 2004–2014 could properly be treated as unreasonably influenced; ACC's allocation of 75% of Olette Ltd's profits to the appellant as reasonable remuneration for services was a justified and reasonable exercise of discretion for abatement purposes. The appeal was dismissed.
24 Aug 2017

Harrison v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2017] NZHC 2041

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2041
Court

High Court

The Authority's factual findings that Harrison and Reid were in a relationship in the nature of marriage from 20 August 2001 to 3 March 2013 were supported by evidence of prolonged cohabitation, financial interdependence and emotional commitment; the Authority was entitled to give no weight to factual assertions in counsel's submissions where the persons making those assertions were not present for questioning; there was no breach of natural justice in the way the hearing was conducted; s86(9A) did not apply to Reid; and the Authority properly declined to direct non-recovery under s86(1) and…
12 Jun 2017

KATHRYN ANNE HARLEN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZSC 87

Citation

[2017] NZSC 87
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the matters raised do not constitute the exceptional circumstances required for a direct Supreme Court appeal; the Appeal Authority and the lower courts adequately addressed the legal issues within the confined right of appeal and subsequent legislative amendments reduce the precedential weight of earlier decisions.
26 Apr 2017

MOULE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 789

Citation

[2017] NZHC 789
Court

High Court

The Authority's conclusion that the overpayment was not caused by an error of a Ministry officer was a reasonable factual conclusion; the appellant failed to establish that the contrary conclusion was the true and only reasonable one under the Bryson standard, so the Authority's legal conclusion stood and recovery was permitted.
4 Apr 2017

LUCKMAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 629

Citation

[2017] NZHC 629
Court

High Court

The application for extension of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an arguable question of law with sufficient prospect of success and did not adequately explain the significant delay; the Authority's factual findings were open on the evidence and the minor incorrect assumption about ongoing benefit receipt was immaterial to the outcome on recovery under s86(1).
29 Jan 2016

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 7
Court

District Court

The 3 July 2014 communication was an arithmetic/bookkeeping clarification, not a s6 'decision'; therefore no compliant review/decision existed that could give rise to a deemed decision under s137/s146, the appellant failed to demonstrate any calculation error, and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jan 2016

Conner v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 21
Court

District Court

On the evidence the appellant was not incapacitated in the period 2 December 2009 to 9 August 2011: payments had lawfully ceased when medical certificates stopped, the appellant did not seek treatment or challenge cessation until 2011, later medical opinion was speculative and could not displace contemporaneous evidence; accordingly ACC correctly determined she was a non-earner at the date weekly compensation recommenced and the overpayment recovery decision was correct.
25 Sept 2015

LANDY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 2338

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2338
Court

High Court

The overpayment debt was created by the prior payment of special benefits and crystallised when ACC entitlement was confirmed; the Ministry's subsequent omission to implement the appellant's instruction did not cause the overpayment so s86(9A) does not bar recovery, and the Authority did not err in exercising its discretion under s86(1) to allow recovery.
25 Sept 2015

LANDY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 2338

Citation

LANDY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 2338
Court

High Court

The debt arose from overpayments of special benefits that crystallised when ACC entitlement was confirmed and therefore was not caused by the Ministry's later omission to implement the appellant's instruction; consequently s86(9A) did not bar recovery and the Authority did not err in refusing to direct non-recovery under s86(1).
10 Jul 2015

Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 195
Court

District Court

The 15 June 2004 letter was an administrative confirmation of existing decisions and review outcomes, did not accept error or purport to revise the 10 June 2003 decision under s65, and dealt with the same subject matter already decided on review and appeal; therefore it was not a fresh decision subject to review and Mr Marsh remains liable to repay $621.10.