Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Accident Compensation Corporation v Weal (DC, 01/12/11)

Judgment Text

DIRECTIONS ORDER OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
M J Beattie Judge
[1]
The progress of this appeal has had somewhat of a chequered history, but as a consequence of a decision of r Justice Miller, delivered in the Wellington High Court on 29 September 2011, the way has now been made clear for the substantive issue raised in this appeal to be determined. 
[2]
That substantive issue has never been considered at a review hearing as the respondent obtained the benefit of a deemed review decision in his favour in accordance with section 146 of the Act. 
[3]
Counsel for the parties have now agreed, rather than have the substantive issue determined, in essence, at a primary hearing in the District Court pursuant to the appeal lodged by the appellant against that deemed decision, to have the substantive issue referred back to a Reviewer to determine the correctness of the Corporation's decision of 11 October 2006, whereby it revoked its earlier decision of 13 December 2004 granting the respondent cover for the medical condition of dengue fever. 
[4]
To enable that substantive review hearing to take place, counsel for the parties have agreed that the deemed decision in the respondent's favour which came into effect on 13 January 2007 be quashed pursuant to section 161(1)(c) of the Act and further, that the issue of the correctness of the Corporation's decision of 11 October 2006 be referred back to a reviewer for determination of the correctness thereof and in furtherance thereof both parties shall be entitled to introduce such evidence as they see fit in relation to their respective positions at the hearing of that review. 
[5]
In furtherance of that proposed review hearing, I direct that the Corporation appoint a reviewer and that the reviewer's office be directed to schedule a teleconference with counsel for the parties so that appropriate directions can be made to progress the matter to a review hearing. 
[6]
For the avoidance of doubt it is identified that both parties do have a statutory right of appeal from any review decision hereafter to be given. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents