New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reviewability

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2017

Peters v Accident Compensation Corporation (Jurisdictional issue and Entitlements)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 134
Court

District Court

The reviewer and District Court correctly dismissed the reviews because the 14 July 2014 letter was only a reaffirmation of the 27 March 2013 decision and not a reviewable new decision absent new material; the claimant did not have cover for a treatment injury so no entitlements (including weekly compensation) could follow; and clause 52 Schedule 1 precluded weekly compensation after 1 January 2008.
4 Sept 2015

Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 248
Court

District Court

Because there was no decision by ACC and no valid application for cover before ACC, s134(1) did not authorize a review and the reviewer (and thus this Court on appeal) lacked jurisdiction; the appeal is dismissed.
22 Jun 2015

Roberts v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 156
Court

District Court

The 7 November 2012 letter from the accredited employer was not a 'Corporation's decision' under the Accident Compensation Act because it concerned holiday/annual leave payments governed by employment law and the Holidays Act, not ACC entitlements; the accredited employer's action was not taken under the accreditation agreement in a manner that would deem it a Corporation decision, so the reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction and correctly refused costs.
1 Nov 2013

Elliston v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 368
Court

District Court

The 5 February 2013 document, by itemising claimed amounts, recording payment as zero, giving reasons for non-payment and stating that each item constitutes a decision, amounted to a fresh reviewable decision in respect of certain travel expense items; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the reviewer for determination, with the indication that approvals for treatment by a named provider (Dr Bright) undermine ACC's nearest-place (Taupo) objection for those items.
10 Jun 2013

Nesbit v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 162
Court

District Court

The reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction because as at 16 November 2011 there was no active, reviewable decision by ACC; the 15 June 2010 letter was advisory and ACC lawfully ceased payments on 10 July 2010 based on the GP's certification, and any substantive decision made subsequently (8 April 2013) is subject to review.
20 Jan 2012

Nicholl-Stevens v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 15
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because ACC correctly declined to reassess vocational independence: the medical evidence did not establish reasonable grounds to believe the appellant's vocational independence had deteriorated since the April 2009 determination. The GP's certificate indicating swelling and pain was insufficient on its own, and specialist opinions (including Dr Ruttenberg and Dr Fairhurst) indicated no change or surgically treatable worsening, supporting ACC's decision not to reassess.
6 Dec 2011

Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 357
Court

District Court

There was no communicated ACC decision denying entitlement or claiming overpayment; criminal prosecution does not substitute for an ACC decision and absent a decision under the Act there is no jurisdiction for review or appeal, so the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
19 Nov 2010

Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 207
Court

District Court

The 15 October 2004 letter was a valid, operative decision under the Act; the 23 September 2008 correspondence merely confirmed that decision and did not constitute a new decision; the Reviewer therefore correctly found he had no jurisdiction to treat the 2008 letter as a fresh decision to be reviewed; the review outcome was an effective decision and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Aug 2009

[Claimant T] v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 129
Court

District Court

The Reviewer correctly found the communications complained of were administrative and not 'decisions' within section 6 of the Act; ACC has no legislative duty to direct claimants which medication to take; therefore there was no jurisdiction under section 149 for review or appeal and the appeal must be dismissed.
21 May 2009

Newman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 92
Court

District Court

The court held that IOA and IMA requirements contained in an Individual Rehabilitation Plan are administrative steps provided for by s.89 and are not reviewable decisions; while an IRP may be a reviewable document, the specific requirements to undergo those assessments are reasonable and not objectionable.