Use the search function below to find recent ACADCR decisions. For older decisions, see:

NZLII decisions for ACADCR

Search results

1017 items matching your search terms

  1. Hutton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for treatment injury) [2025] NZACC 141 [PDF, 183 KB]

    Appeal from the Reviewer’s decision. Claim for treatment injury – s32 Accident Compensation act 2001. Whether appellant suffered a personal injury caused by treatment. Held: No evidence of a physical injury caused by the surgery beyond what was necessary or an ordinary consequence of the procedure. Symptoms more likely attributable to appellant’s underlying health condition. Requirements for section 32 not met. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

  2. Hiemstra & Ors v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2025] NZACC 139 [PDF, 224 KB]

    Recoverability of costs and expenses - s148(2) of the Accident Compensation Corporation Act 2001. Whether the Digital System fee, Technical Specialist fee, and KonnectNet fee are recoverable as expenses. Digital System fee not recoverable as it is a business overhead. Technical Specialist fee not recoverable as they are representation costs. KonnectNet fee may be recoverable, depending on the circumstances. If the fee has been reasonably or necessarily incurred it can be claimed as an expense. Outcome: appeal dismissed, leave to appeal granted.

  3. Friesen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Issue estoppel) [2025] NZACC 134 (25 August 2025) [PDF, 343 KB]

    Issue estoppel, reviewable decision - s 6 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding whether emails were reviewable decision. Another appeal regarding whether issue estoppel applied for cover or entitlements for osteoarthritis. Emails not reviewable decisions. Decision to decline weekly compensation was reviewable but was not. Osteoarthritis had already been determined so issue estoppel applied. Outcome: appeals dismissed.

  4. Hood v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 129 [PDF, 148 KB]

    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 nearly six months. Delay arose out of error. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.

  5. Steed v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 126 [PDF, 148 KB]

    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 over two months. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.

  6. Tipu v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 127 [PDF, 148 KB]

    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 one month. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence. No history of non-cooperation or delay. No real prejudice to Corporation and Corporation did not oppose leave being granted. Outcome: application granted.

  7. Crisp v Accident Compensation Corporation [2025] NZACC 123 [PDF, 163 KB]

    Claim process; deemed cover - ss 48, 58 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether claims made in medical certificates for two further injuries are covered as the Corporation failed to make any decisions on cover within the statutory time frame. Court found no valid claim was made for the two additional injuries. The statements were interpreted as reasons for incapacity, not as claims for cover. No deemed cover could arise under section 58. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

  8. KC v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment) [2025] NZACC 124 [PDF, 163 KB]

    Impairment assessment - Sch 1, cls 54 and 59 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision dismissing review of decision to decline entitlement to permanent injury compensation. Corporation not empowered to pay any lump sum compensation to claimant outside New Zealand unless her condition has been assessed by a person approved for the purpose by the Corporation. No longer a live issue in relation to the Corporation's decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

  9. Dewsnap v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment assessment) [2025] NZACC 121 [PDF, 209 KB]

    Impairment assessment – sch 1(3), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly decided hearing loss was attributable to covered causes and whether WPI was 22 per cent. No medical assessment disputing assessment of hearing loss. No expert compelling evidence WPI assessment was flawed or incorrect. Corporation correctly decided that hearing loss was attributable to covered causes and WPI assessment was 22 per cent. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

  10. Wood v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revision of decision made in error) [2025] NZACC 119 [PDF, 159 KB]

    Review of decision made in error – s 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Code of ACC Claimants' Rights jurisdiction – s 149(3) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Court has jurisdiction to determine appeals from a complaint under the Code. Whether Corporation allowed to revise decision. No jurisdiction to hear appeal. Error not established where there is simply credible difference of expert opinion. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.