New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory time limits for review

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2017

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 365

Citation

[2017] NZHC 365
Court

High Court

Section 83 of the Legal Services Act 2011 must be read consistently with NZBORA s27(2) and not as an absolute ouster of the High Court's judicial review jurisdiction; where the statutory review route would be futile in the circumstances (as shown here by clear Ministry communications that a review would be pointless), the plaintiff is not barred from seeking judicial review and the strike‑out application fails; the 2013 material is relevant to review of the 2015 decision and may be considered in the substantive proceedings.
30 Oct 2014

KUMAR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2670

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2670
Court

High Court

Leave to bring judicial review was granted because special circumstances existed (solicitor error, deportation and practical delay) and there is a serious question of law of public importance as to whether the Tribunal erred by treating paragraph [85] as presuming that future re-entry applications could be considered by Immigration New Zealand and appealed to the Tribunal rather than being matters for the Minister alone; other pleaded grounds were not pursued and cannot be advanced.
14 Sept 2012

Kumar v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 310
Court

District Court

On the facts the Court was satisfied under s135(3) that the appellant's severe pain and surrounding conduct constituted extenuating circumstances that affected his ability to lodge a timely review; ACC erred in declining to accept the late review and must hear and determine the substantive review application.
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.
22 May 2006

Wilce v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

The 21 March 2005 letter did not constitute a new decision under s6 but was a confirmation of the original 28 January 2004 determination on earner status; issue estoppel and the statutory review time limits applied, so the appellant's attempt to reopen the same issue was barred and the appeal is dismissed (despite a formal deficiency in the original notice's explanatory attachment).
7 Mar 2005

Tahere v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

A communication declining to exercise the discretionary power of revision under s452 and maintaining the status quo is not a 'decision' within s13 and therefore is not reviewable; the Reviewer correctly dismissed the application as an attempt to circumvent statutory time limits for review of the February 1999 decision.
7 Dec 2000

Tuioti v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 327
Court

District Court

The 30 July 1999 letter was the operative decision under s136 to cease the appellant's back entitlements; the 7 September 1999 letter was at most declaratory regarding that earlier decision and did not constitute a new decision that would restart the three‑month review period, therefore the review application filed after the statutory period was invalid and the Review Officer correctly found no jurisdiction.

New Zealand Case Law

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 365

KUMAR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2670

Kumar v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hafi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Wilce v Accident Compensation Corporation

Tahere v Accident Compensation Corporation

Tuioti v Accident Compensation Corporation