Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Accident Compensation Cases

P v Accident Compensation Corporation (No 4) (DC, 18/06/07)

Judgment Text

Judge M J Beattie
The issue in this appeal arises from the respondent's alleged failure to pay Home Help fees incurred by the appellant for the month of April 2004. 
This appeal had its genesis in two letters written by the respondent on 13 May 2004 and 2 June 2004 respectively, advising the appellant that reimbursement for the costs of the Home Help and Personal Care provided to her could only be paid once the correct forms had been completed and signed by the person who had carried out the work. 
This is not a case where the respondent is declining the appellant's entitlement to the Home Help and Personal Care payment, but rather it is requiring the correct procedure to be complied with following which payment would be made. 
This appeal was one of a number which first came on for hearing before me on 26 February 2007, and in a Minute following that hearing I noted, inter alia, as follows: 
“The final appeal is AI 359/05 which relates to a decision of the respondent regarding reimbursement to the appellant of Home Help charges. The sole reason why the respondent has not reimbursed the appellant is that the correct form, signed by the correct person, has not been provided to the respondent. There is correspondence from the respondent accepting that the monies are payable but it requires the correct procedure to be followed. 
The Court understands that the appellant was reluctant to have the carer complete the form, as it would require the disclosing of the carer's address, which the appellant believed might in turn lead to discovery of her address. The appellant was assured that such would not be the case, and with the help of Mrs Temm, the Court believes that the appellant is now comfortable with arranging to have the necessary form completed. 
In view of that, I simply direct that this appeal be listed for mention on 23 May 2007, by which date it is expected that the administrative details will have been attended to and the appeal can then be withdrawn or dismissed. ”
When this matter was canvassed before me on 23 May 2007, I was again informed by Mrs Stewart that the matter was in hand and would be resolved, although she did indicate that the appellant still had concerns which had not yet been fully resolved. 
Mr Barnett for the Respondent indicated that this appeal was not an appeal for which there was jurisdiction and that unless there was a refusal to pay the amount simpliciter, it was not an issue where the claimant's entitlements were being affected. 
The Court has given considerable leeway to the appellant to resolve this matter. It is an appeal on the Registry's books which I find ought not to be there as there is no live issue between the parties. 
I find that the conclusion given in the Review Decision covers the matter and as noted by the Reviewer, whilst it is understood that the appellant wishes to ensure her home address is not disclosed, neither he nor I is persuaded that the respondent's position is anything other than reasonable. 
It is up to the appellant and those assisting her to complete the necessary paperwork and arrange for payment accordingly. It is not a matter for the Court to be involved by way of appeal. 
This appeal is dismissed. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents