New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits for claims

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2019

LARKIN (by his litigation guardian Penelope Hoare) v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATON [2019] NZHC 3085

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3085
Court

High Court

The court held that s149(3) of the 1992 Act and its descendants in the 2001 Act (s374) require actual receipt of attendant care compensation at a weekly rate of $350 or more immediately before 1 July 1992; the appellant was not in actual receipt and therefore did not qualify for the extended transitional protection; there was no ambiguity justifying reading-in words to cover mere entitlement; accordingly ACC had no power under ss 374 or 376 to pay attendant care for the contested period and the appeal was dismissed.
22 May 2014

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v HAWKE [2014] NZHC 1098

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1098
Court

High Court

The decision declining the late claim was a procedural decision made under s53 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 as applied by s354, so Part 5 review and appeal in the District Court applies and the Appeal Authority lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
5 Jun 2007

COUGHLAN V EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION HC AK CIV 2007-404-000013

Citation

openlaw-d57cb99d_d9ec_4cba_a10d_c4aabaaf0ce9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Commission's cover under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 is statutory, not contractual, so the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 does not apply; clause 7 of Schedule 3 is a condition precedent with a three-month longstop for notice and, because the plaintiff did not give notice within three months, the Commission is not obliged to provide cover and the plaintiff's claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is struck out.
29 Mar 2004

KATHERINE CAMPBELL AND DANIEL HANDLEY V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA CA138/03

Citation

openlaw-1a48ea22_9cdc_4c41_bbbd_df7a2e2726e2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Reading s149 in the context of s135(3) and the 1992 Act as first enacted, persons who immediately before 1 July 1992 were 'entitled to receive' compensation under s80(3) of the 1982 Act include potential claimants whose ability to receive payment depended on principled exercises of unexercised discretions; accordingly the appellants fell within s149 and their s80(3) claims are preserved and must be reconsidered by the Corporation (with retrospective effect restored by the 1995 amendment to s63 to the extent identified).
18 May 1999

Cook v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 126
Court

District Court

Section 147(2A) of the 1992 Act requires that no entitlement to lump sum compensation under the 1982 Act exists unless a claim for the personal injury was lodged with the Corporation before 1 October 1992; the appellant did not lodge any claim before that date and the Court has no power to override these statutory time limits, therefore the appellant is not entitled to the 1982 Act lump sum and the appeal fails.
7 May 1998

Thomas v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 96
Court

District Court

The written election requirement in section 147 must contain an express choice between lump sum and independence allowance; absent such specific written election the appellant could not be deemed to have elected lump sum compensation. The Review Officer’s refusal of costs was overturned because the appeal court found the review was reasonably brought given factual doubts (including the disputed 1 October 1992 letter).
16 Feb 1995

Wells v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 9
Court

District Court

Regulation 3 validly extended the regulations to applications for transport undertaken on or after 1 July 1992; the appellant's helicopter transport did not meet regulation 4(2) (no request by police or ambulance operator) and did not commence within the 24 hour requirement, so the Corporation correctly declined reimbursement and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

LARKIN (by his litigation guardian Penelope Hoare) v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATON [2019] NZHC 3085

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v HAWKE [2014] NZHC 1098

COUGHLAN V EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION HC AK CIV 2007-404-000013

KATHERINE CAMPBELL AND DANIEL HANDLEY V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA CA138/03

Cook v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Thomas v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Wells v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation