Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:
876 items matching your search terms
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 14 days arose out of error or inadvertence rather than change of mind or indecision. Outcome: application granted.
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.
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 seven days arose due to error or inadvertence. Outcome: application granted.
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.
Claims process, Accident Compensation Act 1982 and Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover for alleged treatment injury, on basis no new or discrete injury caused by treatment could be identified over and above injury for which Appellant was already covered. Corporation correctly declined cover. 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
Interpretation of decision – s 6(1); claims process – ss 134–161, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Reviewer’s decision dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, an application for review of email from Corporation. Email was not a reviewable decision in terms of the Act. Reviewer correctly dismissed application on basis of lack of jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal dismissed.
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.
Claims process – s 149(3), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal. No jurisdiction to hear appeal relating to a Code complaint. Outcome: appeal 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.
Claim for costs on appeal. Appellant entitled to costs following successful appeal. Proceedings of average complexity, justifying category 2 costs. Appellant represented by non-lawyer, therefore 50 per cent of scheduled daily rate awarded. Outcome: Corporation directed to pay Appellant $3,920.00 costs and 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.
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.
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. Outcome: application dismissed.
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.
Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant sought to appeal decision of Reviewer. Appeal filed late as review decision had not been sent to Appellant. Appellant filed appeal within 28 days of being provided with copy of review decision, therefore his appeal had been filed in time. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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.
Appeal - s 149 of Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the bike accident caused changes to spine for which the surgery is required. Whether the conditions predated the accident. Whether the Corporation should fund surgery. Held: Part of the injury to spine caused by the bike accident. Corporation should fund part of the surgery.
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.
Claim for personal injury, ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly revoked and declined cover for Appellant’s right greater trochanteric bursitis as not having been caused by accident. Sufficient evidence that condition was caused by accident. Corporation’s decision to revoke and decline cover was incorrect. Outcome: appeal allowed.
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 20 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.
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.
Claim for weekly compensation – Schedule 1, clauses 49 and 51, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether leave payments received during period of incapacity and while claimant remained employed by employer are payments the Corporation is obligated to abate under clause 51 of Schedule 1 of the Act in calculating the claimant’s entitlement to weekly compensation. Corporation’s interpretation of abatement provisions of the Act was not conducive to fair and predictable outcome for claimants whose claim for weekly compensation involves leave payments made before the termination of employment. Court found that, for abatement purposes, the exclusion of leave payments made other than on termination of employment better accords with the social contract/fairness purpose of the current Act. Outcome: appeal allowed.