New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice by delay

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2019

DAVIDOFF v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZHC 605

Citation

[2019] NZHC 605
Court

High Court

Special leave was denied because the applicant failed to establish any error of law: the District Court's adverse factual findings on scabies and assault injuries were supported by contemporaneous expert medical opinions and other evidence, the 2008 weekly compensation claim was barred by res judicata following prior litigation, and the WPI assessment was not shown to be materially flawed by credible expert evidence; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
6 Dec 2018

Cleverley v Accident Compensation Corporation (Time for making Claim)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 191
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities and to the requisite standard, a causal link between the 1979 accident and the 2013-identified lateral meniscal pathology; the Corporation reasonably found it was prejudiced by the 35-year delay given absence of contemporaneous medical records and conflicting expert opinions, and there was no compelling medical reasoning to prefer the appellant's experts.
24 Apr 2013

Woods v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 119
Court

District Court

The court concluded on the balance of evidence that the appellant's coccydynia was most likely caused by the 1998 accident and that ACC was not materially prejudiced by the delayed claim; consequently ACC must consider the 1998 cover claim under s53(2). However the 2008 accident was unlikely to have caused a new compensable injury and the appeal for surgery funding related to 2008 is dismissed.
28 Jan 2011

Mackay v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 28
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the medical evidence established continued incapacity from the appellant's pre-injury occupation from the date of injury; ACC did not make a primary decision declining the claim on the ground of prejudice under s53, so the court allowed the appeal and required ACC to calculate and pay weekly compensation from the date of injury subject to abatement and refunds.
8 Apr 2009

B v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 51
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was continuously incapable of performing her pre-injury clerical work or equivalent from shortly after October 1987 through the subsequent decades because contemporaneous medical and employment evidence is incomplete and conflicting and the respondent was prejudiced by the lengthy delay; therefore entitlement to backdated weekly compensation was not established and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Sept 2007

Dooms v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 203
Court

District Court

His Honour correctly applied s 61(2): the respondent identified prejudice from the seven year delay and, independently, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence meant the appellant could not prove that the 1994 incident substantially contributed to current symptoms; therefore there was no question of law warranting High Court determination and leave to appeal was refused.
21 Jul 2005

Marshall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 219
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to produce contemporaneous, cogent and independent medical evidence and gave inconsistent dates; those facts objectively prejudiced ACC's ability to determine cover, so ACC's decision of 17 December 2004 declining the late claim was reasonable and must be upheld.
11 Dec 1997

O'Halloran v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 256
Court

District Court

The Corporation reasonably concluded it was prejudiced by the six‑year delay because of the vague description of the accident, absence of contemporaneous medical opinion, and the speculative nature of connecting later symptoms to the 1989 event; therefore s63(2A) was not satisfied and the refusal to accept the late claim was lawful.