Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
1026 items matching your search terms
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed nearly 8 weeks late. The delay was due to a reasonable misunderstanding, not indecision or neglect. The appeal is significant to the Applicant. Outcome: application granted.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the applicant had identified any bona fide and seriously arguable question of law arising from the District Court’s decision, sufficient to grant leave to appeal to the High Court. Held: grounds advanced were either factual disagreements, generalised assertions or referenced statutes not applicable, thus applicant had not identified any seriously arguable question of law arising from District Court’s decision. Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Personal injury - s 26(1A) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against assessment of hearing loss cover. Corporation decision was correctly assessed. Evidence indicated head injuries and chemical exposure should not have been allowed for hearing loss assessment. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court judgment involved an error of law that justified leave to appeal to the High Court. Applicant did not demonstrate that the District Court findings were legally erroneous. The threshold for leave to appeal was not met. Outcome: application dismissed.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Corporation 2001. Whether the District Court adopted the wrong test when interpreting calculation of weekly earnings on appeal of Corporation's decision that applicant was not entitled to weekly compensation as no earnings prior to commencement of incapacity. Applicant has not established error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. No wider importance of contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court judgment involved an error of law that justified leave to appeal to the High Court. Applicant’s grounds (bias, failure to address arguments, misconstrued causation) lacked merit. No error of law capable of serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of 15 days, but delay arose out of understandable error. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.
Appeal regarding multiple ACC decisions for cover for physical, mental injuries, deemed cover, and weekly compensation following several accidents. Sections 20, 25, 26, 58, 65, and 103 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether ACC correctly approved cover for various physical and mental injuries. Held: medical evidence supports ACC decision for cover for physical and mental injuries. Outcome: Appeal dismissed, reviewer’s decisions upholding ACC’s determinations were confirmed.
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court judgment involved an error of law that justified leave to appeal to the High Court. Applicant’s grounds (new evidence, procedural fairness, cost-based denial) were factual arguments, not questions of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal on question of law – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court erred in law in determining entitlement for transport for independence (ATV funding) where there was no cover for osteoarthritis. Held: There were arguable questions of law, including whether it erred in granting an entitlement for a non-covered condition, and whether it failed to provide adequate reasons. These questions capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: Leave to appeal granted.
Work-related gradual process injury - s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for asthma as a work-related gradual process injury caused by exposure to mould. Accepted that the Appellant suffered from asthma. Insufficient evidence of mould in the workplace. Even if there was mould in the workplace, not established that it would cause of contribute to the Appellant suffering asthma. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal against review decision. Whether the reviewer had jurisdiction to consider the review applications. Held: Reviewer correct to find no jurisdiction for one of the review, as there was no identified reviewable decision. Reviewer correct in relation to the other review, as the Code complaint had been properly addressed and District Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on a Code decision. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Appeal against a strike-out application and jurisdictional challenge to a review decision. Failure to make a reviewable decision under sections 36 and 37 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982. Whether the review application was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process. Whether there was any jurisdictional basis for the review. Held: Review application barred by res judicata, issues estoppel, and abuse of process- same issues had already been determined in previous proceedings between the same parties. Outcome: Appeal struck out.
Date of First Incapacity – Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of Corporation’s determination of date of first incapacity. Whether Appellant was incapacitated for employment under s 103 from date of injury. Medical evidence showed Appellant engaged with pre-injury work for two and half months after date of injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Delay of three weeks. Delay arose out of circumstances beyond control. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.
Appeal against the Reviewer’s decision. Appeal against the Accident Compensation Corporation’s decision to suspend entitlements – s117(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation was correct to suspend appellant’s entitlements. Held: ACC had sufficient basis to suspend entitlements in 2013, as medical evidence indicated appellant’s covered injuries were no longer a real and substantial cause of his ongoing condition. Remains a sufficient basis for ACC to be not satisfied that appellant has a right to receive entitlements. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether leave should be granted to file appeal out of time. Appeal was over five weeks late. Procedural obstacles and stress were cited as reasons for delay. The reasons cited were not sufficient. The appeal was moot, as a new decision had already been issued and was under review. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for personal injury - ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for arthritis in the knee. Evidence indicated injury was not causally linked to the Appellant's accident. Corporation correctly declined cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for work-related gradual process injury - s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a work-related gradual process injury. Evidence indicated Appellant's employment task did not cause or contribute to his injury. Appellant's cover was correctly declined. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - Section 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether leave should be granted to file an appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Delay of over five months. Delay was due to understandable circumstances, not indecision. No real prejudice to Corporation. The interests of justice supported granting leave. Outcome: application granted.
Interpretation of decision - ss 6 and 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding emails in response to the Appellant's request for cover for post-traumatic stress disorder. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the emails constituted reviewable decisions. Neither email constituted a reviewable decision. Outcome: appeals dismissed.
Impairment assessment - Pt 3 Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a lump sum payment for an impairment. Doctor's assessment of Appellant's impairment was not flawed. Corporation's decision was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Cover and entitlement to surgery - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant appealed against declined deemed review decision and decision declining claim for cover and entitlement to surgery for a knee injury. Appellant not entitled to a deemed review decision as it did not meet requirements. Evidence indicated injury caused by an accident. Appellant entitled to cover and surgery for knee injury caused by the accident. Outcome: appeal allowed in part.
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court erred in law by upholding ACC’s decision to decline cover for degenerative changes, allegedly resulting from accidents in 1987 and 1989. No arguable question of law and no wider legal importance to justify an appeal. Outcome: application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Impairment assessment - Pt 3 Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding impairment assessment. Apportionment between different impairments permitted. Apportionment assessment for impairment was appropriate. Outcome: appeal dismissed.