Ministry of Justice

Revocation of cover - s 65(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision revoking and declining cover for the appellant's toe injury. Evidence suggested injury was a result of an accident. Noted that injury not well documented due to appellant's other health conditions. Corporation incorrectly revoked cover for the appellant's toe injury. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001.Whether the appellant should be granted leave to file his appeal out of time, given his notice of appeal was lodged two weeks late. Appellant couriered the notice of appeal within time, but it was returned by the courier as the Tribunal's private bag had been closed. It was then sent to the Tribunal's physical address. Reason for delay was an understandable inadvertent error. Interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed. Outcome: appeal granted.

Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Appellant raised an arguable question of law capable of serious consideration regarding the District Court’s dismissal of his appeal. No arguable question of law identified. Weight given to expert evidence is a factual matter, not an error of law. Outcome: application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal to the High Court - 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001.Whether the District Court made an error of law in finding that the Appellants issue is not causally linked to the covered injuries from the 2021 accident and is not itself a physical injury. Medical opinion was divided as to whether the Appellant's pain was related to the initial injury. District Court accepted the Appellant had CRPS Type I but found no causal link to covered injuries. The Judge's findings were open on the evidence and not “so insupportable or clearly untenable” as required to constitute an error of law. Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs on appeal - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Applicant is entitled to costs for both preparation of bundle for hearing and preparation of case on appeal and whether the award should be reduced for partial success. The parties agreed to scale costs on a category 2 band B basis. The Court agreed that partial success required applying a two‑thirds reduction. The Applicant is also entitled to reasonable disbursements, including travel. Outcome: costs granted.

Claims Process - Jurisdiction - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Corporation's decision that their earlier decision was not reviewable. Corporation's earlier decision found not to be reviewable. Challenges by the appellant were outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Deemed cover, need for surgery - ss 20, 25, 56, 57, 58 and Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for osteoarthritis and funding for surgery. Evidence indicated appellant had a degenerative and pre-existing condition. Corporation correctly declined cover and funding for surgery. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Weekly Compensation - cl 31(b) of Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against how weekly compensation was calculated. Insufficient evidence to support the appellant's contended income amount. Corporation correctly based weekly compensation at the adult minimum wage. Outcome: appeal dismissed.    

Claim process - s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's decision declining a subscription. No evidence offered to substantiate claim. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Appeal to the District Court - s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether previous decision setting out backdated weekly compensation and deductions was correctly calculated and lawful. Appellant claims ACC repaid MSD too much and she was effectively taxed twice. Calculations and deductions were found to be lawful. Appeal dismissed.

Weekly compensation - ss 42(7), 54 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation's decision determining the Appellant's weekly compensation. Decision determining Appellant's entitlement to weekly compensation was not made on reasonable grounds. Corporation did not consider Appellant's prospective employment. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Rehabilitation treatment - Sch 1 cl 2 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against Corporation’s decision to decline funding for medicinal cannabis. Corporation’s decision not made on reasonable grounds having regard to Act’s requirements. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Treatment injury - s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision to decline cover for a treatment injury. Insufficient medical evidence to explain the causation of the injury to the treatment. Legislative criteria for treatment injury not met.Outcome: appeal dismissed.