ACCforum: Reviewer Jurisdiction s.134 - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Reviewer Jurisdiction s.134 Reviewable Decisions

#1 User is offline   Pignuts 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 15-September 16

Posted 22 October 2019 - 05:24 PM

s.134 Who may apply for review
(1) A claimant may apply to the Corporation for a review of—
(a) any of its decisions on the claim:
(B) any delay in processing the claim for entitlement that the claimant believes is an unreasonable delay:
© any of its decisions under the Code on a complaint by the claimant.

Iam looking for input insofar as the jurisdiction of the reviewer to consider matters which fall outside a those decision referred to in s.134.

There is the trend for the reviewer to consider matters which fall into adminstration duties of the corporation, which the corporation are unable to delegate, however the corporation make there argument the claimant hasnt meet the mandatory requirements in completing the AC33.

This i would of thought would fall short of being a decision on the claim for which the reviewer would have jurisdiction to make a ruling on.

So how can the reviewer consider matters that are outside the scope of s.134, either presented by the claimant or the corp.

It seems that a Reviewer to considering anything outside of s.134 implies that they have jurisdiction to consider those administrative duties of the corp and if the reviewer is not satisfied those provisions are not meet the review is dismissed,

Where as i believe the Reviewers jurisdiction to make a ruling is limited to decisions in s.134 and nothing more.

If there was an issue in the manner that a review application is presented, then i would expect that the corporation needs to decline acceptance, in which a reviewable decision is provided.

Hope this makes sense
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 October 2019 - 12:44 PM

View PostPignuts, on 22 October 2019 - 05:24 PM, said:

s.134 Who may apply for review
(1) A claimant may apply to the Corporation for a review of—
(a) any of its decisions on the claim:
(Posted Image any delay in processing the claim for entitlement that the claimant believes is an unreasonable delay:
© any of its decisions under the Code on a complaint by the claimant.

Iam looking for input insofar as the jurisdiction of the reviewer to consider matters which fall outside a those decision referred to in s.134.

There is the trend for the reviewer to consider matters which fall into adminstration duties of the corporation, which the corporation are unable to delegate, however the corporation make there argument the claimant hasnt meet the mandatory requirements in completing the AC33.

This i would of thought would fall short of being a decision on the claim for which the reviewer would have jurisdiction to make a ruling on.

So how can the reviewer consider matters that are outside the scope of s.134, either presented by the claimant or the corp.

It seems that a Reviewer to considering anything outside of s.134 implies that they have jurisdiction to consider those administrative duties of the corp and if the reviewer is not satisfied those provisions are not meet the review is dismissed,

Where as i believe the Reviewers jurisdiction to make a ruling is limited to decisions in s.134 and nothing more.

If there was an issue in the manner that a review application is presented, then i would expect that the corporation needs to decline acceptance, in which a reviewable decision is provided.

Hope this makes sense


The reviewer has no jurisdiction to form an opinion let alone a decision for matters that fall outside of section 134.

The reviewer cannot even dismissthe review hearing application as they have no jurisdiction. All that they can do is say that they have no jurisdiction. This of course opens the way up for an action in law under other statutes such as ACC or their agents falsifying a document for pecuniary advantage,, defamation of character and suchlike.

In the event that the ACC claim that an application has not been presented in a manner to their liking then it would be quite obvious that the ACC is required by law to seek further information from the claimant. Further the ACC can't make a decision of any type when they claim that they have not received an application in the proper manner as the application would be a nullity.

0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users