Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
914 items matching your search terms
Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as a matter of law, to sustain his application for leave to appeal. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of nearly 21 months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
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.
Claim for deemed cover – ss 135, 146; claim for personal injury, ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer was deemed to have made a decision in Appellant’s favour on basis that a review application was completed by Appellant’s GP and filed with Corporation but was not set down within three months. Whether injuries and inability to work were caused by Appellant’s accident. Deemed decision did not arise. Corporation correctly revoked and declined cover for Appellant’s pain in lumbar spine. Corporation correctly declined Appellant’s claim for weekly compensation. Corporation correctly declined cover for lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy in relation to accident. Outcome: appeal dismissed, decision of Reviewer upheld.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay of nearly five months arose out of error or inadvertence by Appellant’s representative, for which Appellant was not responsible. No history of non-cooperation or delay by Appellant, and delay unlikely to prejudice Respondent. Interests of justice required exercise of Court’s discretion to sustain application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.
Treatment Injury – s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether causal link between Appellant’s dental implant (treatment) and gingival overgrowth and teeth movement (personal injury). On weight of medical evidence, there was no causal link between the treatment and the injury, therefore treatment injury not established. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. None of the issues raised by Applicant gave rise to a question 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. Delay due to illness. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Delay arose out of an error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay due to Appellant seek legal advice. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Costs on Review – s 148 Accident Compensation Act 2001; Dismissal for want of Prosecution. Appellant’s failure to file any submissions or attend hearing amounted to want of prosecution by Appellant of his appeal. No reason for appeal to remain alive unless Appellant intended to pursue it. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Application by Appellant for continuance of all appeals. Application declined given absence of medical support for request, delays in appeals to date, and procedural history of non-compliance. Outcome: application declined.
Rehabilitation – ss 81 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined to fund a request to assist with transport for independence. Corporation’s decision was not proper and fair by failing to take account of relevant considerations. Medical evidence allowed robust inference that request was required as direct consequence of covered personal injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.
Application for Leave to Appeal – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Sufficient grounds to sustain application for leave to appeal not established. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. No wider importance of contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Leave to appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No point of law capable of bona fide and serious argument in the High Court. No wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application declined.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. No error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument established. No wider importance of any contended point of law. Outcome: application dismissed.
Application for recall of judgment. Appellant failed to establish that for some special reason justice required recall of Court’s judgment dismissing Appellant's appeal. Outcome: application for recall dismissed.
Claim for cover for mental injury - s 27 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined the Appellant's cover. Weight of medical evidence did not establish that the Appellant's physical injury materially contributed to his mental inury. Corporation correctly declined the Appellant's cover. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Grounds for leave to appeal raised by Applicant did not raise questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument which would justify further appeal to the High Court. Outcome: application dismissed.
Appeal of Reviewable decision – ss 134, 145 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether reviewer correctly dismissed five applications for review for lack of jurisdiction. Review applications were invalid as they were not filed against reviewable decisions. No live issues to be determined. Applications dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Delay due to illness. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain his application for leave to file his appeal out of time. Delay arose out of an understandable error or inadvertence. Interests of justice established for appeal. Outcome: appeal granted.
Claim for cover for mental injury – s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant suffered mental injury as result of a physical injury during treatment. Insufficient evidence of causal link between mental injury and a physical injury. Corporation applied correct approach to causation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claim for cover for mental injury – s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant suffered mental injury as result of a physical injury during treatment. Insufficient evidence of causal link between mental injury and a physical injury. Corporation applied correct approach to causation. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Claims for costs on appeal. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $2,064.00, being costs of $1,550.00 and disbursements of $514.00. Appeal allowed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding the Corporation’s decision that the appellant was not entitled to a lump sum payment based on his whole person impairment rating of seven percent. Held: the Corporation correctly declined lump sum compensation for the appellant on the basis of expert medical assessment. Appellant has not established that the impairment assessment conducted on him was flawed or incorrect. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
Appeal from a review decision regarding declined jurisdiction to consider a review for deemed cover. Whether a reviewer or the District Court has jurisdiction to recognise deemed cover that has arisen by operation of law without a formal decision by the Corporation. Held: reviewers and the District Court have jurisdiction to recognise deemed cover even without a formal Corporation decision. Outcome: appeal allowed.