[MG]

A dispute over entitlement to weekly compensation, arising under the 1972 Act but not decided until 2004, must be heard by the District Court, with its narrowed powers, rather than the Appeal Authority, according to the attached decision. IMVHO, the argument really concerned ACC unwillingness to have the case heard by the former Appeal Authority, Robyn Bedford, who "resigned" last year after only a short time in the job but after several complaints from ACC's lawyers. The current authority, Ms Bedford's replacement, is a bureaucrat whose decisions contain nothing of Ms Bedford's power and range.

Attached File(s)

•  Hawke v ACC 2015 NZCA 189.pdf (175.31K)
  Number of downloads: 14

[MINI]

MG, on 04 June 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

A dispute over entitlement to weekly compensation, arising under the 1972 Act but not decided until 2004, must be heard by the District Court, with its narrowed powers, rather than the Appeal Authority, according to the attached decision. IMVHO, the argument really concerned ACC unwillingness to have the case heard by the former Appeal Authority, Robyn Bedford, who "resigned" last year after only a short time in the job but after several complaints from ACC's lawyers. The current authority, Ms Bedford's replacement, is a bureaucrat whose decisions contain nothing of Ms Bedford's power and range.

You need the previous one as well, to get it to make sense.

Will get the number of the case for you.

Hawke v ACC 005 2013

Mini

[not their victim]

I haven't read many of her cases, but she appeared to act in an appropriate manner and within the legislation?

under former acts there was more latitude towards the social contract and its intention

nowadays its being used as an investment portfolio by the misuse of insurance law, by screwing the injured and disabled...IMHO of course...