23 Jun 2022
The misnaming in the judgment was a clerical slip properly corrected under the slip rule (High Court Rules r 11.10); however, the substantive factual finding regarding whether the second respondent could have anticipated the court reserving judgment cannot be the subject of recall and must instead be challenged on appeal.
18 Jun 2007
Regulation 8(2)(a) limits payment to travel to the nearest provider able to give the required rehabilitation; there was no evidence Dr Carl uniquely provided services unavailable in Rotorua, so extra mileage via Napier was not payable and the respondent's decision to limit reimbursement to direct Rotorua–Wellington travel was correct.
18 Jun 2007
Regulation 13 does not apply to the claimed travel; Regulation 17 cannot create a new entitlement where none exists; Regulation 12 authorises contribution for one escort when the claimant's medical condition requires an escort, and on the facts an escort from Wairakei to Napier was reasonable and payable to the appellant's mother, subject to Regulation 12(3)(a) preventing duplicate payment if the claimant was already reimbursed for the same journey.
9 Mar 2007
Taupo Hot Pools is not a 'treatment provider' under the 2001 Act and therefore there is no statutory entitlement to reimbursement of the pool pass or travel incurred retrospectively; travel contributions are limited to travel to the nearest treatment provider and ancillary services require prior agreement or inclusion in an Individual Rehabilitation Plan; decisions made under the Accident Insurance Act 1998 are subject to that Act's three‑month review period and the 2001 Act does not permit retrospective extension of that period, so the late review was properly refused.
12 Feb 1999
The regulations unambiguously limit the respondent's liability for non-emergency transport to the lowest scheduled public transport fare or the statutory per kilometre rate (amended to 55 cents per kilometre); therefore the respondent is not required to pay full taxi fares and has no discretion to do so, and the Court indicated it may lack jurisdiction to determine future travel cost claims but clarified the statutory position.