Costs decision. Outcome: appellant's non-lawyer advocate awarded costs on a 1B basis, with a 50 per cent deduction.
Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
52 items matching your search terms
Costs decision. Outcome: appellant's non-lawyer advocate awarded costs on a 1B basis, with a 50 per cent deduction.
Costs decision. Outcome: appellant ordered to pay costs of $1,910.
Work-related injury - leave to appeal to the High Court under s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether a deemed decision should have been made. Whether cover for a work-related injury should have been awarded. Whether costs should have been awarded. Bona fide question of law that is seriously arguable not established. Outcome: deemed decision dismissed; all questions of law raised dismissed; costs reserved.
Lump sum compensation - clauses 54-59 of Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision regarding assessment of lump sum compensation for permanent impairment. Whether assessment was flawed. No expert evidence identified assessment was flawed or incorrect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Vocational independence - ss 6 and 107 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Shoulder sprain. Whether the appellant had achieved vocational independence. Failed to prove that assessment of vocational independence was wrong. Outcome: decision of reviewer upheld and appeal dismissed.
Personal injury - s 26(2) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against declined personal injury claim. Whether condition requiring surgery was caused by accident or a pre-existing condition. Not proven that there was a causal link between injury caused by accident and condition requiring surgery. Condition substantially caused by a gradual process or disease. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Treatment injury. Appeal against decision to decline cover for treatment injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court on a question of law under s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001.Whether the Judge erred in finding ACC compliant with the legislative s 107 of the Act allowing ACC to determine vocational guidance and s 108 how it is to be determined in accordance with the Act and applicable law. Whether the Judge erred in applying settled law. Bona fide question of law that is seriously arguable not established. Outcome: leave to appeal declined.
Leave to appeal to the High Court on a question of law under s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Bona fide question of law that is seriously arguable not established. Outcome: leave to appeal declined.
Leave to appeal to the High Court under s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court erred not applying more extensive definition of “personal injury” under s 2 Accident Compensation Act 1982. Bona fide question of law that is seriously arguable not established. Outcome: leave to appeal declined.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court on a question of law under s 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant's submissions not capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Recall of judgment. Apply for rehearing. Appellant's contention is that he needs to be assessed and should have a litigation guardian as he lacks capacity. Outcome: No power to grant a rehearing. Appellant's application to have the judgment in this matter recalled and a rehearing granted is declined.
Application for reinstatement of appeals ACR 243/17, ACR 244/17 and ACR 302/17. Outcome: appeals dismissed
Work-related gradual process injury s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision dismissing an application for review of decision declining claim for work-related gradual process injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Ruling pursuant to r 9(5) of the District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. Outcome: access to documents not to be provided.
Appeal under s 149 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. s 26(1) Mental Injury Caused by Covered Physical Injury. Whether the decision of the Corporation declining the appellant's mental injury claim is correct. Appellant has established that the head injury was a cause of mental injury in a genuine and meaningful way. Test in W v ACC set out. Proof of causation. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Suspension of entitlement for non-compliance ss 72(1) and 117(3) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to dismiss an application for review of the Corporation's decision to suspend weekly compensation for non-compliance. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Entitlement to surgery Section 64 and Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal to claim payment for back injury requiring surgery. Outcome: Appeal allowed.
Vocational independence s 107 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Suspension of weekly compensation entitlement. Outcome: decision of reviewer upheld; appeal dismissed.
Late application for review – s 135 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Corporation declined late application for review. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Suspension of Weekly Compensation s 117(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether there was sufficient basis to decide Appellant no longer entitled to weekly compensation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Treatment Injury ss 32(1) and 33 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for a treatment injury. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Suspension of Entitlements s 117 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to suspend Appellant's entitlements for covered back injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Accident s 25, Personal Injury s 26 and Vocational Independence s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover, decision advising that appellant had achieved vocational independence in two work types and decision declining cover of an injury as a consequence of treatment for a covered injury. Outcome: appeal against decision to decline cover of an injury as a consequence of treatment for a covered injury allowed, other appeals dismissed.
Vocational Independence s 8, s 80, ss 107-110 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC correctly decided Appellant was vocationally independent in three work types. Outcome: appeal dismissed. Reviewer's decision that modified Appellant's vocational independence to two work types upheld.