Ministry of Justice

Claims process, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Reviewer’s decision dismissing application for review on basis of lack of jurisdiction. Whether Corporation’s letter was decision capable of review under the Act. Whether appeal barred by reference to principles of res judicata and issue estoppel. Reviewer correctly found that Corporation’s decision was reviewable decision. Reviewer correctly found that she did not have jurisdiction to determine Appellant’s review application, as principles of res judicata and issue estoppel applied. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal - claim for personal injury s 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation's appointment of an assessor was correct. Whether revoked deemed cover and declined cover for lumbar disc protrusion (non-compressive) and lumbar disc displacement was correct. Held: court had no jurisdiction to consider appointment of assessor and Corporation was correct in its decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal against a review decision. s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation is able to cover cognitive impairment as its own injury. Whether there is sufficient evidence of a burn injury. Held: appellant will have cover for cognitive impairment as a separate injury and cover for the burn injury to his genitals. Appeal is allowed

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001 – application for leave abandoned. Applicant decided not to go ahead with application for leave to appeal. Application effectively abandoned. Outcome: application dismissed.

Claim for costs on appeal. Appellant sought costs for time and preparation for review and appeal, and “Baigent” costs. Self-represented litigants not entitled to costs such as time and preparation, and Rules of Court do not make provision for “Baigent costs” as disbursements. Appellant entitled to reasonable disbursements. Outcome: Corporation directed to pay Appellant $100 disbursements.

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as matter of law, to sustain application for leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish error of law capable of bona fide and 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 due to Appellant’s counsel being overseas, not fault of Appellant. Corporation did not oppose leave being grant. Outcome: application allowed.

Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, 27; claim for social rehabilitation – s 81, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover for chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS), on basis of insufficient information as to causation. Whether Corporation correctly determined level of Appellant’s retrospective social rehabilitation entitlements. On evidence, Corporation correctly declined cover for CRPS and correctly advised of Appellant’s entitlement to home help and social rehabilitation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant failed to establish sufficient grounds, as matter of law, to sustain application for leave to appeal. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: application dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Application for leave to appeal relates to incapacity from a covered injury. Held: the applicant's dissatisfaction does not give rise to an error of law. District Court's finding was open to it on the facts. Sufficient grounds to justify grant of leave to appeal have not been established. Outcome: application dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant did not establish sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain application for leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish error of law capable of bona fide and 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 18 months was considerable, but arose due to error or inadvertence for which Appellant was not responsible, and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.

Claims process – ss 134(1), 149(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal against Reviewer’s decision affirming Corporation’s decision declining cover. Appellant’s submissions not related to matter addressed by Reviewer, therefore no jurisdiction for Court to consider subject-matter of Appellant’s submissions. Corporation later granted cover for Appellant’s treatment injury, therefore issue between parties was now moot. Outcome: appeal dismissed.