New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reviewability of administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2018

Pryce v Accident Compensation Corporation (Jurisdiction)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 154
Court

District Court

The Court held there was no jurisdiction to review or hear an appeal on ACC's refusal to make an outside‑scope payment for the appellant's increased tax liability because reimbursement for tax is not an entitlement under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and the Crown Entities Act cannot be used to import such an entitlement; consequently the Reviewer's finding of no jurisdiction is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Aug 2017

Thirring v Accident Compensation Corporation (Reviewable Decision)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 99
Court

District Court

The Corporation's letter of 10 November 2015 did not constitute a fresh reviewable decision because it only confirmed the earlier suspension decision and did not accept that the earlier decision was made in error or revise/revoke it under s390; therefore there was no new decision subject to review and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Sept 2016

Morris v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 277
Court

District Court

The reviewer's dismissal of the 19 February 2015 and 1 April 2015 applications was correct because the communications did not identify any ACC decision capable of review; statutory duties to acknowledge and allocate reviewers (ss136-137) did not render the dismissal invalid where allocation occurred and timing was not determinative; and the reviewer was not precluded from determining the review because his prior involvement related to a different claim and ss138-139 require disclosure/avoidance only for previous involvement 'in the claim', so no reasonable apprehension of bias arose under Sax…
20 May 2016

Auimatagi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 142
Court

District Court

The 8 February 2013 letter was not a new reviewable decision under s6 but a confirmation of the status quo; the entitlement dispute had been finally dealt with by earlier reviews and an out of court settlement in 1998 so the matter was res judicata and could not be reopened on appeal; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
22 Jul 2015

Kaulima v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 206
Court

District Court

The 16 August 2013 letter was not a decision because the IRP was not finalised: the claimant had not agreed to it and the Corporation had not advised it was final; accordingly the reviewer rightly declined jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
30 May 2014

McFarlane v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 141
Court

District Court

The 28 January 2011 letter did not constitute a fresh reviewable decision because ACC did not accept the 2004 decision was erroneous under s 65 and the letter merely confirmed the extant decision after considering additional material; the 2004 review decision had already adjudicated the s 30(2)(c) issue so res judicata applies; and s 26(3) statutorily excludes the appellant's stroke from cover absent the narrow exceptions in s 20(2), therefore the appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2014

Splite v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 124
Court

District Court

The District Court held that the legal question whether ACC's requirement that a claimant undergo a vocational independence assessment constitutes a 'decision' under s6 and is reviewable under s134 is a question of law capable of bona fide argument and granted leave to appeal to the High Court to determine that question; the Court did not resolve the substantive issue but found the matter sufficiently arguable given the statutory definition of 'decision' and McGrath guidance.
9 May 2014

McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 118
Court

District Court

The 18 March 2013 letter was confirmation of ACC's earlier decision and did not constitute a new decision; Dr Brick's report did not present new medical evidence raising a new question such that s65 revision or a fresh reviewable decision was required; therefore there were no review rights and the appeal was dismissed.
21 Jun 2013

Estate of Henry v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 178
Court

District Court

The 12 October 2011 letter was not a reviewable decision because it only confirmed an earlier acceptance of cover; ACC was not required to investigate or report under s284 where cover had already been granted and no live issue remained between the parties; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the reviewer's refusal to award costs stands.
15 May 2013

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 135
Court

District Court

The April 28, 2008 decision was made in breach of the mediation agreement (which required ACC to seek further opinion from Mr Kelman before issuing a fresh decision) and therefore was not a valid decision; the December 2, 2009 letter constituted the operative decision intended by the mediation agreement and was reviewable, requiring a review hearing and revocation of the earlier decisions.