4 Sept 2015
The appeal is dismissed because it seeks to re-litigate the same issue already decided (issue estoppel/res judicata), the letter scheduling the hearing test constituted an administrative arrangement rather than a reviewable 'decision' under s6(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and the matter is moot as the appointment date has passed.
4 Aug 2009
The appeal was dismissed because the Reviewer's decision that he had no jurisdiction was correct: the application for review failed to identify a primary decision within s6 of the Act and was therefore invalid and not reasonably brought; accordingly the Reviewer's exercise of discretion to refuse costs was upheld.
4 Aug 2009
The appeals fail because the five review applications did not involve 'decisions' within s6 of the Act (nor decisions under the Code of Claimants' Rights per s134(1)(c)); accordingly the Reviewer correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and properly declined to award costs.
4 Aug 2009
The Reviewer correctly found the 4 April 2007 letter requiring medical assessment was not a 'decision' within s6 and, given the claimant's obligation under s72 to undergo assessments when required, the review application and consequent appeal were outside the Court's jurisdiction and must be dismissed.
4 Aug 2009
Because the respondent had accepted responsibility and the sums in issue had been paid such that there was no live issue, the District Court lacked jurisdiction under s149 to hear the appeal; the Reviewer's decision that there was no jurisdiction was correct, and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Apr 2007
The 16 January 2006 letter was not a "decision" within s6 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, and therefore the District Court has no jurisdiction under s149 to entertain the appeal; the Reviewer's determination was correct and the appeal is dismissed.