Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Estate of Mallon v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 28/03/11)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
The issue in this appeal arises from the respondent's decision of 8 January 2009, declining to extend the time for the lodging of an application for review of a decision of the respondent dated 28 April 2008 beyond the three month statutory time-frame, on the basis that there was no evidence of extenuating circumstances which would justify extending the time. 
[2]
This decision was confirmed at review by Review Decision dated 31 May 2010. 
[3]
At the hearing of this appeal, and when the issue for determination was identified by the Court and advised to Mrs Mallon, she advised that she had not been aware that this was the issue in the appeal and she had been under the impression that she would be able to argue in favour of an entitlement to weekly compensation for her late husband for the period leading up to his death. It is the case that the late Mr Mallon passed away on 22 January 2010. 
[4]
The late application for review which had been lodged by Mr Mallon related to the respondent's decision of 28 April 2008, whereby he was advised that he did not qualify for an independence allowance on the grounds that his net Whole Person Impairment, after the deduction of the percentage of lump sum payment previously received, was less than the 10% minimum required under the Act. 
[5]
It is the case that Mr Mallon did not lodge an application for review of that decision until 7 December 2008, considerably outside the three month statutory period required by Section 135 of the Act. 
[6]
After I discussed the issue which the Court had jurisdiction to consider with Mrs Mallon, she accepted that an appeal on the point in issue would have little prospect of success. It was further indicated to her that even if the late application for review were to be granted, the fact of her husband now being deceased prevented any further independence allowance assessments being undertaken, and therefore the issue of any entitlement to an independence allowance could never be resolved in the deceased's favour. 
[7]
Mrs Mallon accepted that the appeal would be dismissed, and accordingly I formally determine that the appeal had no prospect of success and it is hereby dismissed. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents