New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review hearing procedure

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2016

FARRELLY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 3153

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3153
Court

High Court

High Court held no legal error: a claimant's evidence is admissible but a judge may rightly require objective medical and other corroborative evidence for retrospective incapacity; s102(2) requires consideration of medical assessments; there is no statutory consequence for a reviewer exceeding 28 days and a reviewer may reopen hearings where justified; special leave on process grounds refused and special leave on substantive ground granted but appeal dismissed on merits.
15 Apr 2003

Beecher v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 62
Court

District Court

On rehearing the court accepted the occupational and medical assessor evidence (notably Dr Gollop) that the appellant was medically capable and occupationally suitable for four specific roles (Herd Tester/Sampling Officer, Caretaker, Artificial Breeding Technician, Veterinary Assistant) while rejecting Farm Manager; therefore the respondent’s determination that the appellant has a capacity for work is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Oct 1997

Eskay Limited v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 204
Court

District Court

The District Court exercised its wide discretion under the District Courts Act and Rules to award costs to Ms Wilson because she reasonably incurred costs preparing for an appeal that was rendered unnecessary by the Court's order for a new review hearing; the appropriate award was fixed at $1,800 to be paid by the respondent.

New Zealand Case Law

FARRELLY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 3153

Beecher v Accident Compensation Corporation

Eskay Limited v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation