20 Jun 2018
No arguable point of law arises from Judge Powell's judgment because ACC was not required to process treatment claims while 'all entitlements' were lawfully suspended, the relevant issues had been conclusively determined by prior judgments, and allowing the appeal would be a collateral attack and an abuse of process; accordingly leave to appeal is refused.
7 Sept 2017
Medical evidence established that the amputations were predominantly caused by the claimant's poorly controlled diabetes and related comorbidities rather than the August 2012 cut, the GP's antibiotic choice, or the December 2014 burns; accordingly the Corporation's decisions declining weekly compensation, declining treatment injury cover, and declining consequential cover were correct, and the reviewer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the 2006 MRSA decision or treat the complaint about delay as a reviewable decision.
29 Jan 2016
The 2001 Act applies to Mr Marsh's claims; because he had previously been determined vocationally independent, that finding is treated under s111 as a determination that he no longer has an incapacity for employment under s103, so time off for acupuncture did not create entitlement to weekly compensation and no deemed decision remedy under the 1998 Act was available; Reviewer Thomson correctly dismissed the review and the appeal is therefore dismissed (also rendered moot by backdating to 20 October 2005).
31 Jul 2015
s148(3) does not apply to reviews under s134(1)(b) because no antecedent decision existed to be revised; the reviewer correctly applied s148(2)(b) and, on the facts (no evidence of unreasonable delay and ongoing enquiries and reports), the review was not reasonably brought, so costs were properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
22 Jul 2015
The Court held the plaintiff could seek monetary relief despite not pleading a direct challenge to EQC's election because EQC's purported election to repair (communicated 17 September 2014) was made unreasonably late and therefore ineffective; on the facts the floor dislevelment was held to be earthquake damage, but the plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a full replacement Type 2A foundation was required (their quantum basis failed); the appropriate remedy was to give the plaintiff an election between a quantified monetary award for known repairs plus additional…
7 Aug 2014
The Fisheries Act is not an exclusive code displacing the Conservation Act concession regime; a concession was required to carry on commercial eeling on conservation land and the two regimes operate in parallel with distinct purposes (utilisation v conservation). DOC lawfully considered effects on eel populations and conservation values when assessing concessions and did not impermissibly usurp Fisheries Minister functions, but DOC acted unlawfully by requiring separate conservancy applications and by use of a costs acknowledgement form that purported to secure an acknowledgement of liability…
20 Feb 2014
The appeal was dismissed because the assessor permissibly postponed assessment pending the claimant's recovery and stability after wrist surgery and there was no evidential or legal basis to order retrospective staged assessments; moreover the appellant had not shown ACC unreasonably delayed and procedural requirements for lump sum claims were not satisfied, confining the appeal to the original assessment scope.
24 Dec 2012
The Court held that the s57 timeframes and s58 deemed cover do not apply to judicial directions to the Corporation; the prior 11 July 2005 decision meant no deemed decision arose and the Court's direction of 30 November 2006 did not restart the statutory decision time limits, therefore s58 did not operate and the appeal is dismissed.
8 Aug 2012
The Court upheld the Reviewer: (1) the delay review (143007) was correctly declined because a substantive decision had been issued before the review hearing, removing any jurisdiction to direct a decision; and (2) the 18 February 2009 letter merely reaffirmed the earlier 30 July 2008 decision declining surgery and therefore was not a new, reviewable decision (143419); appeals dismissed.
21 Jul 2011
Delay in complying with the Reviewer's 28 day direction did not render the respondent's subsequently issued decisions legally ineffective; because the respondent issued decisions and the matters have since been reconsidered and reviewed, there is no longer a live issue arising from the Reviewer's April 15, 2010 decision and the appeal is dismissed.