Ministry of Justice

Personal injury/causation – s 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Employer’s decisions revoking cover and suspending entitlements, and subsequent Review Decision declining Appellant’s application for review, were correct. Whether Appellant’s injury was caused by accident or by a pre-existing degenerative condition. On balance of probabilities Appellant’s accident caused the injury. Employer’s decisions revoking cover and declining entitlements for the injury and the subsequent Review Decision were incorrect. Outcome: appeal allowed. Orders made quashing Employer’s decisions and directing Employer to reinstate entitlements from date of suspension, including weekly compensation, the provision of aids and appliances and surgery.

Claims for costs on appeal. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $5,513.35, $2,234.70 in costs and disbursements of $3,278.65. 

Leave to Appeal to High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Legal issue raised by Appellant was one of wider importance, and capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: leave to appeal granted.

Appeal challenging the Corporation and Reviewer’s earlier decision. Sections 79 and 81 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation’s decision to decline funding for air conditioning equipment and voice-activated computer software was correct. Held: Corporation’s decision to decline funding request was correct. Medical evidence did not support a causal link between injury and the need for requested equipment. Treatment provided to appellant was reasonable and appropriate, no departure from the standard of care. Appeal is dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds as a matter of law to sustain applications for leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: applications dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether sufficient grounds, as matter of law, to sustain applications for leave to appeal. Applicant failed to establish any error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: applications dismissed.

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether appellant's late filing of appeal against Corporation’s decision to decline cover for PTSD should be accepted. Appellant's delay arose out of error due to significant mental and physical injuries. Corporation did not oppose application and no significant prejudice or hardship to others. Interests of justice required exercise of discretion to sustain Appellant's application for leave to file appeal out of time. Outcome: application granted.

Physical Injury – s 26(1)(c) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal against the Corporation’s decision declining cover for mild neurocognitive disorder (NCD). Whether the appellant had a mental injury under s 27 of the Act, requiring a medically established diagnosis of NCD. Only if NCD was proven would causation under s 26(1)(c) require examination. Held: The diagnosed mental injury was not established; causation was therefore irrelevant. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Leave to appeal to the High Court. Section 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation’s decision to decline funding to the appellant for a four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicle for social rehabilitation and independence was correct. Held: Court upheld the Corporation’s decision. Corporation had reasonably exercised its discretion, and appellant had not established an injury-related need for a 4WD vehicle. Appeal is dismissed. 

Late filing of an appeal to the District Court - s 151 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether interests of justice required the exercise of discretion to sustain her application for leave to file her appeal out of time. Interests of justice established for appeal. Delay arose out of error or inadvertence by the Appellant's advocate. Outcome: appeal granted.

Suspension of weekly compensation – s 117(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly suspended Appellant’s weekly compensation. Corporation did not have sufficient basis to be not satisfied that Appellant was entitled to continue receiving weekly compensation. Corporation was not entitled to suspend Appellant’s entitlement. Outcome: appeal allowed. Corporation directed to reinstate Appellant’s entitlement to weekly compensation from the time it was suspended.

Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly declined cover and surgery funding. Appellant’s accident did not cause the degenerative changes in his CMC joint, but rather rendered them symptomatic. Appellant not entitled to cover or surgery funding. Corporation correctly declined cover and surgery funding. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Rehabilitation – Aid for Appliance: Part 1, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation correctly exercised its discretionary powers when declining Appellant’s application for an electric bed to be funded. Corporation clearly correct in concluding need for the bed was not a direct consequence of the covered injuries. Weight of evidence supported Corporation’s conclusion. Outcome: appeal dismissed.