Ministry of Justice

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed over two years late. Reasons for delay were reasonable including new evidence from GP and relocation to a different city. No prejudice to respondent in granting leave. The appeal is significant to appellant. Interests of justice favoured granting leave. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed 13 months late. Delay was significant, but reasons were personal and not due to indecision or change of mind. Interests of justice require granting leave despite lengthy delay. Outcome: application granted.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to file appeal outside the statutory 28-day timeframe. Appeal was filed nearly 8 weeks late. The delay was due to a reasonable misunderstanding, not indecision or neglect. The appeal is significant to the Applicant. Outcome: application granted.

Work-related gradual process injury - s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for asthma as a work-related gradual process injury caused by exposure to mould. Accepted that the Appellant suffered from asthma. Insufficient evidence of mould in the workplace. Even if there was mould in the workplace, not established that it would cause of contribute to the Appellant suffering asthma. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether leave should be granted to file appeal out of time. Appeal was over five weeks late. Procedural obstacles and stress were cited as reasons for delay. The reasons cited were not sufficient. The appeal was moot, as a new decision had already been issued and was under review. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Claim for work-related gradual process injury - s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining cover for a work-related gradual process injury. Evidence indicated Appellant's employment task did not cause or contribute to his injury. Appellant's cover was correctly declined. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Interpretation of decision - ss 6 and 134 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding emails in response to the Appellant's request for cover for post-traumatic stress disorder. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the emails constituted reviewable decisions. Neither email constituted a reviewable decision. Outcome: appeals dismissed.

Cover and entitlement to surgery - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant appealed against declined deemed review decision and decision declining claim for cover and entitlement to surgery for a knee injury. Appellant not entitled to a deemed review decision as it did not meet requirements. Evidence indicated injury caused by an accident. Appellant entitled to cover and surgery for knee injury caused by the accident. Outcome: appeal allowed in part.

Impairment assessment - Pt 3 Sch 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal regarding impairment assessment. Apportionment between different impairments permitted. Apportionment assessment for impairment was appropriate. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Costs on appeal - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Claim for costs and disbursements assessed. Appropriate award was category 2B costs of $15,041.25 and disbursements of $17,583.34. Outcome: costs awarded.  

Leave to appeal to the High Court - s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Applicant had raised arguable questions of law sufficient to justify leave to appeal the District Court’s decisions. No arguable question of law was established that met the threshold for appeal. Outcome: application for leave dismissed.

Personal injury - ss 25, 26, 27 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against decision declining Appellant's cover and suspending weekly compensation. Corporation incorrectly declined Appellant's cover. Evidence of a pre-existing degenerative condition did not reach the degree required to bar cover. Outcome: appeal allowed.  

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.