Ministry of Justice

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’s grounds (bias, failure to address arguments, misconstrued causation) lacked merit. No error of law capable of serious argument. 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 (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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cover - ss 20, 25, 26, 56, 58, 67 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover and weekly compensation for spinal injury. Corporation's decision was correct. Evidence did not support that spinal injury was caused by accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed.