New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 135 interpretation

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2009

Hafi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 107
Court

District Court

The District Court found the appellant was aware of the obligation and had the ability to lodge a review within three months, the alleged extension was unproven, the medical evidence did not show incapacity during the deadline (the left thumb injury occurred after the deadline), and therefore there were no extenuating circumstances under s135(3); appeal dismissed.
24 Jul 2007

Powell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 166
Court

District Court

The appellant did not establish extenuating circumstances to the requisite degree because the evidence showed only preoccupation and personal failings (procrastination/forgetfulness) rather than a real impairment preventing timely action; imprisonment was a temporary impairment and the appellant had sufficient opportunity before incarceration to lodge the review.