Help
This topic is locked
How many claimants have been declared vexatious for their over litigation both at review and Appeal Court
The legal databse make for interesting reading as some people have had at least 11 appeals before the courts and if thats not defining vexatious what is.
Vexatious people ACC claimants rorting the system
#2 Guest_guest-ANIMAL_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:20 AM
defining vexatious, is idiots like you, who have nought better to do, than post up stupid comments
go get a life ya bully
go get a life ya bully
#3 Guest_Kermit_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:37 AM
Vexatious litigants: a law unto themselves? Balancing participation against abuse of court process
Section 27(3) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("NZBORA") recognises the right to justice as an important civil right in New Zealand. In exercising the right to justice, every person has the right to access the courts. However, there are individuals who embrace this right with a little too much enthusiasm.
For an applicant engaged in Environment Court proceedings, these individuals can be extremely frustrating, particularly where their opposition bears little relevance to the proceedings at hand and can significantly delay and increase the costs of a project through the additional burden of responding to unnecessary claims or applications. Obviously the rights under the NZBORA are fettered in certain circumstances1 but how have the courts approached the issue of vexatious litigants in court proceedings?
Vexatious litigants and section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908
The courts have held that section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 ("Judicature Act") is a justified limitation on section 27 of the NZBORA.2 Section 88B provides for the restriction on the institution of vexatious actions by vexatious litigants. Under section 88B, an applicant must first apply to the Attorney General to make an application, on its behalf, to the High Court to restrict a vexatious litigant. To be deemed a "vexatious litigant" under section 88B, an individual must have:
instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the High Court or any inferior court;3
done so persistently; and
done so without any reasonable ground.
Following receipt of the Attorney-General's application, the High Court must provide an opportunity to that person of being heard. If the court is satisfied that an individual is a "vexatious litigant", the court may make an order under section 88B to preclude the individual from instituting any civil proceeding or any civil proceeding against any particular person or persons unless leave from the court has been obtained.4 For a litigant to obtain leave from the court, the court must be satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of process and that there is a prima facie ground for the proceeding.
Orders under section 88B
Although the Judicature Act does not define "vexatious", the courts have taken various meanings of "vexatious" in relation to legal proceedings. Case law has established the following factors will indicate that an individual's proceedings are vexatious:
a pattern of complex, prolix and sometimes incomprehensible pleadings;
the proceedings showing the individual to be almost a compulsive litigant against a widening circle of defendants;
extravagant claims or scandalous allegations which the litigant has no prospect of substantiating or justifying;
the frequency with which part or all of the individuals statements of claim had been struck out;
the extent to which the respondent allowed his proceedings to lie dormant;
proceedings that are commenced maliciously, not in good faith;
proceedings that require the defending party to defend itself against claims that have already been disposed of; or
proceedings that cannot lead to any practical result.
The mere fact that an individual has failed in litigation does not demonstrate that the proceedings were vexatious. In such a case, the court must examine the reasons given in the judgment (Attorney General Hill (1993) 7 PRNZ 20).
In determining whether or not to allow an application under section 88B, the court in Hill stated that the following principles will apply:
The power under s88B is not to be lightly exercised.
The reasons for restraining a vexatious litigant are:
the entitlement of defendants to protection (from cost and unnecessary time);
the need to use the limited resources of the judicial system for the resolution of genuine proceedings; and
the interests of the vexatious litigant him/herself.
The issue of whether the defendant has persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings is to be determined objectively.
The totality of the proceedings must be looked at.
The issue is not whether the proceeding was instituted vexatiously, but whether it is a vexatious proceeding.
A proceeding may be vexatious, notwithstanding that it may disclose the germ of a legitimate grievance, a cause of action, or a ground for institution.
"Legal proceedings" include civil proceedings in the High Court, District Court and Disputes Tribunal.
Only proceedings instituted by the defendant are within s88B of the Act. The section does not extend to a proceeding in which the defendant, as an executor, has been substituted as plaintiff.
These principles illustrate that, due to the nature of section 88B, a decision under it must not be made lightly. A determination under section 88B is a balancing exercise for the courts. On one hand, restraining an individual from undertaking legal proceedings amounts to a denial of the right to access the courts (in particular section 27(3) NZBORA). However, on the other hand, the procedures of courts and tribunals should not be used against people in such a way that they have to take the time and incur cost of responding to claims of the vexatious kind. Preventing or inhibiting access to the courts must always be treated as an unusual step, justifiable only in extraordinary circumstances and only where there is a properly established evidential basis for doing so after a fair and open hearing on the point.5
Conclusion
In the process of seeking an application for a large project, there will often be individuals who persistently lodge submissions in opposition of the application. While their participation can raise important issues and concerns in relation to the project, where their submissions are irrelevant, extravagant, resurrect concluded matters or are simply not made in good faith, their participation can incur significant costs, delays and frustrations to the applicant.
Section 88B provides an effective remedy to applicants who are effectively hamstrung by a litigant who continues to institute vexatious proceedings against them. In such circumstances, an applicant can apply for an order, via the Attorney General, to declare the litigant as "vexatious" and preclude them from lodging further proceedings unless they obtain leave from the court.
However, granting of an order is a careful balancing exercise of competing interests - an individual's right to the courts versus opponents who are being harassed by an abuse of the judicial process. The Courts are willing to restrict an individual's right to the courts and participation, but only in extraordinary and extreme circumstances. As such, orders under section 88B must always be treated as an unusual step and are difficult to obtain. Where the court refuses to make an order, applicants may need to seek alternative remedies such as a strike out application or an order for costs which will go some way to redress the costs and delays incurred.
Section 27(3) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("NZBORA") recognises the right to justice as an important civil right in New Zealand. In exercising the right to justice, every person has the right to access the courts. However, there are individuals who embrace this right with a little too much enthusiasm.
For an applicant engaged in Environment Court proceedings, these individuals can be extremely frustrating, particularly where their opposition bears little relevance to the proceedings at hand and can significantly delay and increase the costs of a project through the additional burden of responding to unnecessary claims or applications. Obviously the rights under the NZBORA are fettered in certain circumstances1 but how have the courts approached the issue of vexatious litigants in court proceedings?
Vexatious litigants and section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908
The courts have held that section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 ("Judicature Act") is a justified limitation on section 27 of the NZBORA.2 Section 88B provides for the restriction on the institution of vexatious actions by vexatious litigants. Under section 88B, an applicant must first apply to the Attorney General to make an application, on its behalf, to the High Court to restrict a vexatious litigant. To be deemed a "vexatious litigant" under section 88B, an individual must have:
instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the High Court or any inferior court;3
done so persistently; and
done so without any reasonable ground.
Following receipt of the Attorney-General's application, the High Court must provide an opportunity to that person of being heard. If the court is satisfied that an individual is a "vexatious litigant", the court may make an order under section 88B to preclude the individual from instituting any civil proceeding or any civil proceeding against any particular person or persons unless leave from the court has been obtained.4 For a litigant to obtain leave from the court, the court must be satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of process and that there is a prima facie ground for the proceeding.
Orders under section 88B
Although the Judicature Act does not define "vexatious", the courts have taken various meanings of "vexatious" in relation to legal proceedings. Case law has established the following factors will indicate that an individual's proceedings are vexatious:
a pattern of complex, prolix and sometimes incomprehensible pleadings;
the proceedings showing the individual to be almost a compulsive litigant against a widening circle of defendants;
extravagant claims or scandalous allegations which the litigant has no prospect of substantiating or justifying;
the frequency with which part or all of the individuals statements of claim had been struck out;
the extent to which the respondent allowed his proceedings to lie dormant;
proceedings that are commenced maliciously, not in good faith;
proceedings that require the defending party to defend itself against claims that have already been disposed of; or
proceedings that cannot lead to any practical result.
The mere fact that an individual has failed in litigation does not demonstrate that the proceedings were vexatious. In such a case, the court must examine the reasons given in the judgment (Attorney General Hill (1993) 7 PRNZ 20).
In determining whether or not to allow an application under section 88B, the court in Hill stated that the following principles will apply:
The power under s88B is not to be lightly exercised.
The reasons for restraining a vexatious litigant are:
the entitlement of defendants to protection (from cost and unnecessary time);
the need to use the limited resources of the judicial system for the resolution of genuine proceedings; and
the interests of the vexatious litigant him/herself.
The issue of whether the defendant has persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings is to be determined objectively.
The totality of the proceedings must be looked at.
The issue is not whether the proceeding was instituted vexatiously, but whether it is a vexatious proceeding.
A proceeding may be vexatious, notwithstanding that it may disclose the germ of a legitimate grievance, a cause of action, or a ground for institution.
"Legal proceedings" include civil proceedings in the High Court, District Court and Disputes Tribunal.
Only proceedings instituted by the defendant are within s88B of the Act. The section does not extend to a proceeding in which the defendant, as an executor, has been substituted as plaintiff.
These principles illustrate that, due to the nature of section 88B, a decision under it must not be made lightly. A determination under section 88B is a balancing exercise for the courts. On one hand, restraining an individual from undertaking legal proceedings amounts to a denial of the right to access the courts (in particular section 27(3) NZBORA). However, on the other hand, the procedures of courts and tribunals should not be used against people in such a way that they have to take the time and incur cost of responding to claims of the vexatious kind. Preventing or inhibiting access to the courts must always be treated as an unusual step, justifiable only in extraordinary circumstances and only where there is a properly established evidential basis for doing so after a fair and open hearing on the point.5
Conclusion
In the process of seeking an application for a large project, there will often be individuals who persistently lodge submissions in opposition of the application. While their participation can raise important issues and concerns in relation to the project, where their submissions are irrelevant, extravagant, resurrect concluded matters or are simply not made in good faith, their participation can incur significant costs, delays and frustrations to the applicant.
Section 88B provides an effective remedy to applicants who are effectively hamstrung by a litigant who continues to institute vexatious proceedings against them. In such circumstances, an applicant can apply for an order, via the Attorney General, to declare the litigant as "vexatious" and preclude them from lodging further proceedings unless they obtain leave from the court.
However, granting of an order is a careful balancing exercise of competing interests - an individual's right to the courts versus opponents who are being harassed by an abuse of the judicial process. The Courts are willing to restrict an individual's right to the courts and participation, but only in extraordinary and extreme circumstances. As such, orders under section 88B must always be treated as an unusual step and are difficult to obtain. Where the court refuses to make an order, applicants may need to seek alternative remedies such as a strike out application or an order for costs which will go some way to redress the costs and delays incurred.
#4
doppelganger 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:44 AM
Kermit N Piggy, on 05 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:
How many claimants have been declared vexatious for their over litigation both at review and Appeal Court
The legal databse make for interesting reading as some people have had at least 11 appeals before the courts and if thats not defining vexatious what is.
The legal databse make for interesting reading as some people have had at least 11 appeals before the courts and if thats not defining vexatious what is.
Are you saying the ACC is using the courts as the administrator of claims making up excuss after excuss to terminate entitlements. Nick Smith was the minister who has publicly stated he wanted entitlements termimated.
The Answer would be ACC is Vexatious in it applying of the legistation and the court decisions.
How many cases did you find were ACC have claimed they do not have information when the only information being presented by ACC is the procured report and not all of the necessary information in ACC posession.
Question for the ACC staff member is who has told you off for lying and now you got caught.
Being caught for dishonesty is dismissal.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#5 Guest_Kermit N Piggy_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:50 AM
doppelganger, on 05 February 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:
Are you saying the ACC is using the courts as the administrator of claims making up excuss after excuss to terminate entitlements. Nick Smith was the minister who has publicly stated he wanted entitlements termimated.
The Answer would be ACC is Vexatious in it applying of the legistation and the court decisions.
How many cases did you find were ACC have claimed they do not have information when the only information being presented by ACC is the procured report and not all of the necessary information in ACC posession.
Question for the ACC staff member is who has told you off for lying and now you got caught.
Being caught for dishonesty is dismissal.
The Answer would be ACC is Vexatious in it applying of the legistation and the court decisions.
How many cases did you find were ACC have claimed they do not have information when the only information being presented by ACC is the procured report and not all of the necessary information in ACC posession.
Question for the ACC staff member is who has told you off for lying and now you got caught.
Being caught for dishonesty is dismissal.
Have a look at this guy and his knocking his head against a brick wall
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 34 (2 March 2010)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2003] NZACC 196 (22 August 2003)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2004] NZACC 37 (8 March 2004)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 212 (10 September 2007)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 243 (7 November 2007)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2009] NZACC 95 (21 May 2009)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2005] NZACC 314 (25 October 2005)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 282 (4 October 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 227 (13 December 2010)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 201 (22 July 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 201 (22 July 2011)
#6 Guest_olleh morf em_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:25 PM
Well dude, this Smith guy may have had a good reason for going to court all those times .... MAYBE HE WAS SCREWED BY ACC and still is being screwed by them as like the rest of us are!
Good on Mr Smith! Stand tall dude!
Good on Mr Smith! Stand tall dude!
#7
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:44 PM
Kermit N Piggy, on 05 February 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:
Have a look at this guy and his knocking his head against a brick wall
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 34 (2 March 2010)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2003] NZACC 196 (22 August 2003)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2004] NZACC 37 (8 March 2004)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 212 (10 September 2007)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 243 (7 November 2007)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2009] NZACC 95 (21 May 2009)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2005] NZACC 314 (25 October 2005)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 282 (4 October 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 227 (13 December 2010)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 201 (22 July 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 201 (22 July 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 34 (2 March 2010)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2003] NZACC 196 (22 August 2003)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2004] NZACC 37 (8 March 2004)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 212 (10 September 2007)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 243 (7 November 2007)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2009] NZACC 95 (21 May 2009)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2005] NZACC 314 (25 October 2005)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 282 (4 October 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 227 (13 December 2010)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 201 (22 July 2011)
Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZACC 201 (22 July 2011)
You are missing one or two.
Review hearing in 1984 due to ACC not paying loss of earnings or supplying Vocational Rehabilitation. Out come increase the covered injuries to also include 3. Lumbar Spine
(a) Mild to moderate persistent muscle spasm with pain, with moderate degenerative lipping revealed by X-ray
(
Fracture: (i) Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change
you forgot to mention the court case resulting from the decision that I was committing an offence by being paid compensation due to the above injuries were not covered and ACC could not deduct the earnings from the compensation because the earnings information did not the name and address of the employer. Apparently they demanded an overpayment with out the name and address of the employer.
That decision resulted in the courts claiming I did not want to "work" because some Private investigator gave an opinion when ACC was having a meeting about Vocational Rehabilitation and Permanent Incapacity Assessment.
No offences were found to have been committed and ACC had all of the necessary information to administer the claim.
the ACC had a number of other documents showing I was looking at increasing my earnings and reliability to be able to maintain work.
Two of those court decision are an attempt to have the injuries correctly recorded on the file.
Decision 34.2010 is just that to find error in the reviewers decision to have "Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change " reinstated back on the claim.
In anyone reading the decision you will see the judge making a decision under section 117 and trying to remove the covered injuries causing incapacity by claiming the injuries shouldn't have been accepted.
On the other hand ACC were telling the court ACC had no information in its possession showing the injuries causing incapacity are covered or does cause pain from time to time. The review application was applied for under section 390 requesting the error in the injuries having cover and recorded by ACC assessor as
X-rays
Plain films AP and lateral of the lumbar spine dated 24.11.04 showed
degenerative changes with narrowing of the disc space at the level of
L3/L4 and L4/L5. The rest of the lumbar spine was normal.
MRI scan lumbar spine dated 5.3.02 showed decreased T2 disc signal
through the lower three intervertebral discs with mild thecal sac
indentation from a mild left paracentral disc protrusion at L4/L5 with
some impingement on the left L5 nerve root..
This confirms again Professor Alldred did not make a false document when advising the reviewer the injuries will occurr in the future and conforms the injuries did happen. ACC has not appealed to the ACC Appeal Authority of the 1984 reviewers decision and also unsuccessful in removing those injuries.
FKKermett N Piggy who are you.
Needy could be a possibility as he is working with Tony Gibbons to discredit me.
Keen to help or Tony Gibbons as he hates the truth.
ACC lawyer as he will now have to explain to the courts as to why he told the court the, Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change, covered injuries were claimed to be age related degeneration
You could be ACC Legal Services, a staff or ex staff from ACC if not the case manager Mr Wilson who os a compusive liar.
You answer in less than six minutes showed you were awaiting an answer from me.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#8 Guest_Kermit N Piggy_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:46 PM
doppelganger, on 05 February 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:
You are missing one or two.
Review hearing in 1984 due to ACC not paying loss of earnings or supplying Vocational Rehabilitation. Out come increase the covered injuries to also include 3. Lumbar Spine
(a) Mild to moderate persistent muscle spasm with pain, with moderate degenerative lipping revealed by X-ray
( Fracture:
(i) Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change
you forgot to mention the court case resulting from the decision that I was committing an offence by being paid compensation due to the above injuries were not covered and ACC could not deduct the earnings from the compensation because the earnings information did not the name and address of the employer. Apparently they demanded an overpayment with out the name and address of the employer.
That decision resulted in the courts claiming I did not want to "work" because some Private investigator gave an opinion when ACC was having a meeting about Vocational Rehabilitation and Permanent Incapacity Assessment.
No offences were found to have been committed and ACC had all of the necessary information to administer the claim.
the ACC had a number of other documents showing I was looking at increasing my earnings and reliability to be able to maintain work.
Two of those court decision are an attempt to have the injuries correctly recorded on the file.
Decision 34.2010 is just that to find error in the reviewers decision to have "Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change " reinstated back on the claim.
In anyone reading the decision you will see the judge making a decision under section 117 and trying to remove the covered injuries causing incapacity by claiming the injuries shouldn't have been accepted.
On the other hand ACC were telling the court ACC had no information in its possession showing the injuries causing incapacity are covered or does cause pain from time to time. The review application was applied for under section 390 requesting the error in the injuries having cover and recorded by ACC assessor as
X-rays
Plain films AP and lateral of the lumbar spine dated 24.11.04 showed
degenerative changes with narrowing of the disc space at the level of
L3/L4 and L4/L5. The rest of the lumbar spine was normal.
MRI scan lumbar spine dated 5.3.02 showed decreased T2 disc signal
through the lower three intervertebral discs with mild thecal sac
indentation from a mild left paracentral disc protrusion at L4/L5 with
some impingement on the left L5 nerve root..
This confirms again Professor Alldred did not make a false document when advising the reviewer the injuries will occurr in the future and conforms the injuries did happen. ACC has not appealed to the ACC Appeal Authority of the 1984 reviewers decision and also unsuccessful in removing those injuries.
FKKermett N Piggy who are you.
Needy could be a possibility as he is working with Tony Gibbons to discredit me.
Keen to help or Tony Gibbons as he hates the truth.
ACC lawyer as he will now have to explain to the courts as to why he told the court the, Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change, covered injuries were claimed to be age related degeneration
You could be ACC Legal Services, a staff or ex staff from ACC if not the case manager Mr Wilson who os a compusive liar.
You answer in less than six minutes showed you were awaiting an answer from me.
Review hearing in 1984 due to ACC not paying loss of earnings or supplying Vocational Rehabilitation. Out come increase the covered injuries to also include 3. Lumbar Spine
(a) Mild to moderate persistent muscle spasm with pain, with moderate degenerative lipping revealed by X-ray
(
Fracture: (i) Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change
you forgot to mention the court case resulting from the decision that I was committing an offence by being paid compensation due to the above injuries were not covered and ACC could not deduct the earnings from the compensation because the earnings information did not the name and address of the employer. Apparently they demanded an overpayment with out the name and address of the employer.
That decision resulted in the courts claiming I did not want to "work" because some Private investigator gave an opinion when ACC was having a meeting about Vocational Rehabilitation and Permanent Incapacity Assessment.
No offences were found to have been committed and ACC had all of the necessary information to administer the claim.
the ACC had a number of other documents showing I was looking at increasing my earnings and reliability to be able to maintain work.
Two of those court decision are an attempt to have the injuries correctly recorded on the file.
Decision 34.2010 is just that to find error in the reviewers decision to have "Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change " reinstated back on the claim.
In anyone reading the decision you will see the judge making a decision under section 117 and trying to remove the covered injuries causing incapacity by claiming the injuries shouldn't have been accepted.
On the other hand ACC were telling the court ACC had no information in its possession showing the injuries causing incapacity are covered or does cause pain from time to time. The review application was applied for under section 390 requesting the error in the injuries having cover and recorded by ACC assessor as
X-rays
Plain films AP and lateral of the lumbar spine dated 24.11.04 showed
degenerative changes with narrowing of the disc space at the level of
L3/L4 and L4/L5. The rest of the lumbar spine was normal.
MRI scan lumbar spine dated 5.3.02 showed decreased T2 disc signal
through the lower three intervertebral discs with mild thecal sac
indentation from a mild left paracentral disc protrusion at L4/L5 with
some impingement on the left L5 nerve root..
This confirms again Professor Alldred did not make a false document when advising the reviewer the injuries will occurr in the future and conforms the injuries did happen. ACC has not appealed to the ACC Appeal Authority of the 1984 reviewers decision and also unsuccessful in removing those injuries.
FKKermett N Piggy who are you.
Needy could be a possibility as he is working with Tony Gibbons to discredit me.
Keen to help or Tony Gibbons as he hates the truth.
ACC lawyer as he will now have to explain to the courts as to why he told the court the, Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral bodies, little or no fragmentation, no definite pattern or neurologic change, covered injuries were claimed to be age related degeneration
You could be ACC Legal Services, a staff or ex staff from ACC if not the case manager Mr Wilson who os a compusive liar.
You answer in less than six minutes showed you were awaiting an answer from me.
Well you did reply and identified and tied yourself to the Smith cases.
As for me all I want to know is who are the vexatious litigants are, and dont say ACC in the above mentioned cases because EVERY case was initiated by you, not ACC, you brought the cases before the court, it was your claim.
#9
Fighter for Justice
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 110
- Joined: 23-August 08
Posted 05 February 2012 - 05:31 PM
At the risk of being attacked - I will comment! I believe some ACC Claimants have recently been criticised by Judge(s) in recent District Court Decisions.
Not all of these ACC Claimants have had multiple Appeals/Reviews. Even if ACC Claimants have had multiple Appeals/Reviews - I believe it means they have been "bleeped by the system/ACC" - Not that they are vexatious litigants!
I do not consider it is the job (or right) of District Court Judges (or Reviewers) to criticise ACC Claimant cases at Review/Appeal. Perhaps the purpose of the criticism is to stall/halt/dissuade other claimants from appealing/reviewing ACC related matters.
IMHO it is rarely the case that ACC Claimants are vexatious - it is more likely that ACC has largely contributed to a situation where said ACC Claimant has no choice but to fight for their rights.
Not all of these ACC Claimants have had multiple Appeals/Reviews. Even if ACC Claimants have had multiple Appeals/Reviews - I believe it means they have been "bleeped by the system/ACC" - Not that they are vexatious litigants!
I do not consider it is the job (or right) of District Court Judges (or Reviewers) to criticise ACC Claimant cases at Review/Appeal. Perhaps the purpose of the criticism is to stall/halt/dissuade other claimants from appealing/reviewing ACC related matters.
IMHO it is rarely the case that ACC Claimants are vexatious - it is more likely that ACC has largely contributed to a situation where said ACC Claimant has no choice but to fight for their rights.
#10
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 05 February 2012 - 06:05 PM
Kermit N Piggy, on 05 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:
Well you did reply and identified and tied yourself to the Smith cases.
As for me all I want to know is who are the vexatious litigants are, and dont say ACC in the above mentioned cases because EVERY case was initiated by you, not ACC, you brought the cases before the court, it was your claim.
As for me all I want to know is who are the vexatious litigants are, and dont say ACC in the above mentioned cases because EVERY case was initiated by you, not ACC, you brought the cases before the court, it was your claim.
The person who makes the decision is the starter of the litigation. An incorrect decision or not making a decision at the required time is the starter of litigation
Only when the decision or request is complied to the litigation is not needed.
The person making the request is not and can not be the litigator. the first decision maker is the litagator.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#11
angryman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 524
- Joined: 26-January 07
- LocationEarth
Posted 05 February 2012 - 06:24 PM
doppelganger, on 05 February 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:
The person who makes the decision is the starter of the litigation. An incorrect decision or not making a decision at the required time is the starter of litigation
Only when the decision or request is complied to the litigation is not needed.
The person making the request is not and can not be the litigator. the first decision maker is the litagator.
Only when the decision or request is complied to the litigation is not needed.
The person making the request is not and can not be the litigator. the first decision maker is the litagator.
Acording to the dictionary both the plaintiff and the defendant are litigants.
"Can justice and ACC live symbiotically, or are justice and accident compensation forever an oxymoron" Malcolm Hood.
#12 Guest_Lord denning_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:46 PM
The person who brings the action or case is the one who can be declared vexatious
#13
Huggy
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 894
- Joined: 18-October 05
Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:56 PM
ACC have called me vexatious (notes in file) for the 20 or so reviews that I have taken against ACC.
ACC dont care if I have won almost all of the reviews and still call me vexatious.
I think it is an unfair term to be called vexatious when you have succeeded in almost all reviews, I am simply exercising my legal right to review any decision that ACC has made that I do not believe to be fair.
ACC dont care if I have won almost all of the reviews and still call me vexatious.
I think it is an unfair term to be called vexatious when you have succeeded in almost all reviews, I am simply exercising my legal right to review any decision that ACC has made that I do not believe to be fair.
#14 Guest_Lord Denning_*
Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:49 PM
Your cases have been proved in tour favour which means you were not frivilous
Also being called vexatious by one party ie ACC does not alter things unless the judge finds you vexatious
There is a world of difference between a just case and frivolity in my opinion
Also being called vexatious by one party ie ACC does not alter things unless the judge finds you vexatious
There is a world of difference between a just case and frivolity in my opinion
#15
angryman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 524
- Joined: 26-January 07
- LocationEarth
Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:50 AM
Huggy, on 05 February 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:
ACC have called me vexatious (notes in file) for the 20 or so reviews that I have taken against ACC.
ACC dont care if I have won almost all of the reviews and still call me vexatious.
I think it is an unfair term to be called vexatious when you have succeeded in almost all reviews, I am simply exercising my legal right to review any decision that ACC has made that I do not believe to be fair.
ACC dont care if I have won almost all of the reviews and still call me vexatious.
I think it is an unfair term to be called vexatious when you have succeeded in almost all reviews, I am simply exercising my legal right to review any decision that ACC has made that I do not believe to be fair.
To call someone who has won most of thier cases vexatious, is extremely arrogant. It shows a total lack of respect for the justice system, and an attitude of non acceptance of the judgement against them.
Thier lack of respect for the justice system is not surprising, because its the same attitude that they harbour for some of thier clients.
"Can justice and ACC live symbiotically, or are justice and accident compensation forever an oxymoron" Malcolm Hood.
#16
Southernman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 01-July 09
Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:13 AM
The Crown solicitor representing ACC referred to me as a "vexatious litigant".
My legal council objected to this remark.
Judge Beattie though about it for a brief moment, then said:
"But the claimant is the respondent in these proceedings !"
Pehaps ACC should think twice before calling claimants "vexatious"
My legal council objected to this remark.
Judge Beattie though about it for a brief moment, then said:
"But the claimant is the respondent in these proceedings !"
Pehaps ACC should think twice before calling claimants "vexatious"
#17
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:21 AM
Lord denning, on 05 February 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:
The person who brings the action or case is the one who can be declared vexatious
So you are conforming the ACC is the litigator. they are the ones bringing action against the request by denying the entitlement awarded under legislation.
I also take note that you are not Lord Denning or any person who can think for them selves
get back to writing submissions that are facturally correct, and apply with the Privacy Act as should do in each case.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#18
angryman
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 524
- Joined: 26-January 07
- LocationEarth
Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:10 AM
doppelganger, on 06 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:
So you are conforming the ACC is the litigator. they are the ones bringing action against the request by denying the entitlement awarded under legislation.
I also take note that you are not Lord Denning or any person who can think for them selves
get back to writing submissions that are facturally correct, and apply with the Privacy Act as should do in each case.
I also take note that you are not Lord Denning or any person who can think for them selves
get back to writing submissions that are facturally correct, and apply with the Privacy Act as should do in each case.
Litigator, a party to a law suit,
Someone involved in litigation.
"Plaintiffs and defendants are both litigants"
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/litigator
"Can justice and ACC live symbiotically, or are justice and accident compensation forever an oxymoron" Malcolm Hood.
#19
Britts
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:32 AM
Southernman, on 06 February 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:
The Crown solicitor representing ACC referred to me as a "vexatious litigant".
My legal council objected to this remark.
Judge Beattie though about it for a brief moment, then said:
"But the claimant is the respondent in these proceedings !"
Pehaps ACC should think twice before calling claimants "vexatious"
My legal council objected to this remark.
Judge Beattie though about it for a brief moment, then said:
"But the claimant is the respondent in these proceedings !"
Pehaps ACC should think twice before calling claimants "vexatious"
Can I ask who the Crown Solicitor was??
I see they have a law firm that has a crown solicitor in it handling reviews in Timaru as well as DRSL. Wonder how ACC decide which case goes to which review outfit?
#20 Guest_lady Denning then_*
Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:58 AM
doppelganger, on 06 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:
So you are conforming the ACC is the litigator. they are the ones bringing action against the request by denying the entitlement awarded under legislation.
I also take note that you are not Lord Denning or any person who can think for them selves
get back to writing submissions that are facturally correct, and apply with the Privacy Act as should do in each case.
I also take note that you are not Lord Denning or any person who can think for them selves
get back to writing submissions that are facturally correct, and apply with the Privacy Act as should do in each case.
No dumbnuts.
You instigated, started, initiated proceedings by applying to the courts therefore you are the time wasting idiot who is vexatious.
I wont call you vexatious anymore just a plain evil minded individual who thinks he has a legal brain and can compete inc court and fufill all the criteria for what was it KTH called it pettifogging.
