ACCforum: Reviews/appeals - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Reviews/appeals Reviews/Appeals

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 08:22 AM

Apparently the Community Law Centres will no longer be handling ACC matters because there is not enough money from legal aid payments and costs awarded to justify the amount of very complex work now needed.

Yet apparently claimants who represent themselves mostly lose in Court.

IMHO this appears to do more with the Judges' in this jurisdiction not fearlessly pursuing the truth and doing justice between the parties, than any deficiencies in the claimants case. I have written to the Chief Justice about proceedings in this jurisdiction.

Apparently, the NZ Law Society is also concerned that there are not enough lawyers interested in ACC work (probably for the same above reasons)

These issues were apparently discussed on National Radio last night in its Checkpoint programme between 5 and 6pm.

All this raises important points.

If claimants now look likely to have to "go it alone" then the purpose and meaning of s.140 (e) (reviews) becomes crucial.

That section provides that a reviewer must "adopt an investigative approach with a view to conducting the review in an informal, timely and practical manner."

That is simply not happening.

Reviewers are conducting hearings only - they are adversarial and formal - not informal - moreover, a hearing requires oaths, evidence, recording etc.

A formal hearing only does not meet the statutory requirements of s.140 (e).

This then raises issues for appeals to the Court from the reviewer.

An appeal is by way of a "rehearing" (S.155 (2))

If the original review is supposed to be investigative and informal (not just a formal 1 hour hearing) does it not follow that at any appeal the judge must also conduct an investigasting and informal approach to what is a "rehearing"?????

After all it is a "rehearing" of the reviewers decision (including processes, procedures etc.)

ACC and the Judges try, and do, limit.

An investigative and informal s.140(e) review is crucial if claimants now look likely to have to more and more go it alone.
0

#2 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 10:24 AM

That's right - Legal Aid does not pay well enough for the amount of work that these Reviews dictate.

I know that Hazel Armstrong in Wellington is taking on Legal Aid cases (and she is good!)but I think it must be realised that the claimant does have to do quite a large amount of the work as well.
0

#3 User is offline   Juscallin1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 18 March 2005 - 10:31 AM

Reviewers are not only being biased and totally ACC orientated but are also ruling on whether there is "jurisdiction" on whether there is a case.
Most of these "jurisdiction" thingies are being also conducted over the phone. You, it would seem, now do not even have automatic right to a Review.
Acc are becoming more powerful by the day. The claimant hasnt a show, toady IOA"S, Toady IMA, Toady VIA"s Toady Reviewers, Toady judges.
BRING BACK OUR RIGHT TO SUE!!
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 11:01 AM

I have just visited the District Court to inquire about what assistance, forms guidance is there available for a person to defend, for example, a speeding infringement and if you lose after a hearing what assistance, forms, guidance is then available to appeal.

Well, you simply won't believe the process between the District Court to defend and appeal a speeding infringement and the Accident Appeals District Court Registry in Wellington is like chalk and cheese.

There is assistance, forms and guidance available - but from the Accident Appeals District Court Registry to appeal a review decision or appeal to the High Court there is zero, zilch, zip, nada available.

The difference is an absolute bloody disgrace. The ACC District Court Registry ought to be ashamed of themselves.

It is most certainly not fair and proper administration of justice and providing reasonable access to the Courts.

This has to be changed, and quickly - and I don't care who you send this to.
0

#5 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 11:16 AM

I stand corrected. There is a Notice for Appellants Acting On Their Own Behalf but then the bloody judges are not following it nor the Practice Note of the Chief District Court Judge.

For example, its says "Decisions on Papers - Both parties must agree to this request."

And yet we have judges doing decisions on the papers without agreement of the parties being sought nor given - and they become public documents without a fair hearing being held in public.

Refer to that Watcha posted about what the Chief Justice had to say about hearings in public being required.

If you then want to appeal to the High Court then there is nothing.
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