Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

McKinney v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 10/07/06)

Judgment Text

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J. CADENHEAD 
Judge J. Cadenhead
[1]
This appeal was set down for a Directions Conference, and inter alia an application by the appellant to call oral evidence upon the appeal, namely, the evidence of: 
[i]
Dr Bryant 
[ii]
Mr A McAuslan, orthopaedic specialist 
[iii]
Affidavit of David Jamieson 
[2]
After hearing the parties on this matter, it became obvious that a credibility/reliability finding was required upon review. The appellant while desiring to call the fresh evidence was disputing the right of the respondent to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits that were sought to be placed before the appeal hearing. 
[3]
The parties, after some discussion, agreed that as it was necessary that credibility/reliability findings were made, that the review decision should be quashed and the matter remitted for a review officer to reconsider the matter afresh, to hear the evidence, and to make credibility/reliability findings on the factual issues concerning this appeal. 
[4]
Both parties agreed that this would be the sensible course to take, and that the review hearing should be before another reviewer. 
[5]
The appellant, in particular, desired that a further review hearing take place as early as possible. 
Decision 
[6]
After hearing the parties, and in particular having regard to their consents I quash the review decision. I direct that another review hearing take place before another reviewer, and as early as possible. The reviewer should set aside a reasonable amount of time within which to hear the evidence to be called and cross-examination of the witnesses. The reviewer should ascertain from both parties the amount of time required, which might be considerable. A review date should be set as early as conveniently possible. 
[7]
The review decision is accordingly set aside, because it factually does not address credibility/reliability issues, which are at the heart of this appeal. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents