[flowers]

What puzzles me is is that even though the claimant won they were not awarded costs.
????? The cost of justice??????
If as that idiot dyson has repeatedly said that claimant appeal of decisions does not cost the claimant anything.
Something really SUX here!

[Spacecadet]

flowers, on Apr 29 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

What puzzles me is is that even though the claimant won they were not awarded costs.
????? The cost of justice??????
If as that idiot dyson has repeatedly said that claimant appeal of decisions does not cost the claimant anything.
Something really SUX here!

It could be that the appellant was legally aided, in which case, cost are usually not awarded?

[MG]

The Court has discretion not to award the winning party costs. It seems that the Court thought this case was largely won on a technicality. In fact, and as we know from the "King" case, ACC had a policy of refusing to properly conduct s60 assessments on the illegal basis that the law was about to change in its favour anyway so it could ignore people who were entitled under the 1982 Act.

[flowers]

still sux. if ACC was remiss and he won the case then there can be no discresion.
They did the crime, they lost the case, they should pay not the taxpayer. they are all too quick to apply costs of their expensive leagal shyshters to the claimant if he looses. so why is it discresionary for ACC to get off the hook.
CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS.....THATS WHY!
Costs should be ACC's not the taxpayer......................

[doppelganger]

This case is like other cases around the same period. Request for a section 60 to be completed and the ACC go into a mode of Section 59. Although they are simular the outcomes aredifferent.

as for costs that should be taken up with the case manager to supply. They gain that remuneration if it is in the corporations favor so they should be out of pocket for going to review or courts.