New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Review and appeal rights

  • 29 Aug 2022

    THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MELVILLE HIGH SCHOOL v CRONIN-LAMPE [2022] NZCA 407 [29 August 2022]

    Citation
    [2022] NZCA 407
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    s 133(5) does not bar the Employment Court from hearing proceedings where a claimant has made ACC claims but has accepted the Corporation's decision so that the dispute as to cover has been resolved under Part 5; the privative effect is spent once there is no live dispute to be resolved under the Act and requiring review/appeal in those circumstances would be futile and an abuse of process.

    • Jurisdiction
    • Privative provision
    • Exhaustion of remedies
    • S 133(5) accident compensation act 2001
    • Work-related personal injury
    • Review and appeal rights

  • 31 Mar 2021

    LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 30

    Citation
    [2021] 1 NZLR 194
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Section 133(5) bars the courts from considering or granting remedies in relation to matters governed by the Act once a claim with a right of review or appeal is made; the appellant's challenge could and should have been pursued under the Act's Part 5 review and appeal procedures (including applying for late review under s135), and being out of time does not evade the statutory bar; accordingly the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive civil claim.

    • Treatment injury
    • Ordinary consequence
    • Section 133(5)
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Prior informed consent
    • Time limits

  • 2 Apr 2008

    BUIS V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORP HC AK CIV 2007-404-004703

    Citation
    openlaw-32446bbc_6850_4e6d_b0fc_2ee66743f889.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The deductions and payment were decisions in respect of the claimant's entitlement, but because the Corporation failed to give required written notice, reasons and review information and the statutory review process was not effectively available or accessible to the claimant in the circumstances, the privative clause did not bar judicial review; accordingly the judicial review proceeding was not statute‑barred and the strike‑out application was dismissed.

    • Statutory bar
    • Privative clause
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Notice and reasons
    • Time limits for review
    • Strike-out abuse of process

  • 12 Jun 2007

    Graham v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2007] NZACC 100
    Court
    District Court

    The application for leave was refused because the points raised either were factual or, if arguable as points of law, would not materially affect the District Court's factual conclusion that the appellant had completed rehabilitation and has capacity for the identified occupations; consequently there was no proper question of law warranting High Court determination.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Individual rehabilitation plan (irp)
    • Capacity for work assessment
    • Procedural requirements for irps
    • Review and appeal rights

  • 23 Nov 2005

    ANZ BANKING GROUP (NZ) LTD V ACC HC AK CIV 2005-485-00938

    Citation
    openlaw-0de232a0_f09f_4ed0_acfb_c9ff31f6e668.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court held that the June 2003 refund was an alteration made under Reg21A(4) to give effect to a final and conclusive review decision and was not a fresh experience rating assessment susceptible to full review and appeal; Regulation 21A bars wholesale reassessment after the 31 March 2000 cut-off, and any alteration is limited to making the existing assessment comply with the final review decision, so ANZ's wider challenge to embedded loadings was time barred and the appeal was dismissed.

    • Experience rating
    • Premium assessment
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Regulation 21a
    • Definition of decision
    • Jurisdictional bars

  • 22 Apr 2005

    Creagh v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2005] NZACC 130
    Court
    District Court

    The 16 May 2003 letter constituted a decision that, on its terms, granted attendant care compensation of $83,402 for the period 28 November 1987 to 4 November 1992; that decision was reviewable and appealable under the Act and could not be unilaterally revoked by the Corporation while review and appeal were pending; the Corporation's 18 February 2005 letter purporting to withdraw the May 2003 decision is not a valid decision in respect of the same matter.

    • Attendant care
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Decision versus settlement offer
    • Transitional provisions
    • Abuse of process

  • 19 Mar 2004

    Ellmers v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2004] NZACC 57
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal is dismissed because the Court accepted the existence of the decisions and lacked jurisdiction to advance a claim that Catalyst acted without authority; the IRP dated 1 August 2001 contained no entitlements so no review or appeal lay under clause 34(2) and any procedural omission caused no prejudice; the medical assessment complied with s100 by addressing occupational assessment information in medical terms, omission of the caretaker role was immaterial and advantaged the appellant, and delay in delivery of the medical report did not breach a time limit nor cause prejudice.

    • Individual rehabilitation plan
    • Capacity for work assessment
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Procedural fairness
    • Medical assessor obligations (s100)

  • 29 Apr 2003

    Batistich v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2003] NZACC 72
    Court
    District Court

    The IRP did not grant or withdraw statutory entitlements enumerated in Schedule 1/clause 32 and therefore did not constitute a 'decision' requiring s71 notification; accordingly the insurer was entitled to require the appellant to participate in a Work Capacity Assessment and to determine she had capacity for work; appeal dismissed.

    • Work capacity assessment
    • Individual rehabilitation plan (irp)
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Section 71 notification
    • Entitlement determination

  • 15 Dec 1998

    Tony Elmiger Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

    Citation
    [1998] NZACC 270
    Court
    District Court

    The only issue properly before the Court on this appeal under s65(6)/s89 was whether the Corporation correctly accepted the claimant's injury of 9 July 1997 as a work injury; the injury was undisputed and acceptance was correct, so the appeal is dismissed.

    • Work injury definition
    • Experience rating
    • Review and appeal rights
    • Attribution of liability

  • 23 Jan 1997

    Te Au v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

    Citation
    [1997] NZACC 4
    Court
    District Court

    The appeal is allowed because the Review Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding matters arising from the 11 September 1995 letter which had not been the subject of review; that letter is a declaratory interpretation of transitional provisions and does not bar the appellant from lodging and obtaining determinations on individual claims under either the 1982 or 1992 Act.

    • Transitional provisions
    • Jurisdiction of review officer
    • Lump sum compensation election
    • Record keeping and claim registration
    • Review and appeal rights