ACCforum: District Court Thomas-Hiddleston 13/2009 - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

District Court Thomas-Hiddleston 13/2009 Reviewer declining jurisdiction

#1 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 05 March 2009 - 10:16 AM

Interesting case about a reviewer declining jurisdiction.

ACC issued a decision which the client did not review.

Several years later, client provided new information to ACC, ACC said that they have considered the new information and upheld their original decision, the client was out of time.

ACC then went to review and the reviewer declined jurisdiction as the "decision letter" was a mere restatement of the Status Quo.

The judge overrode the reveiwer and determined that because the client had provided new information, ACC referred to that in their decision, even though the "decision" was the same, the matter was capable of review, effectively on the basis that it related to the new information.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 05 March 2009 - 11:08 AM

Back to the drawing board for ACC and DRSL

The no jurisdiction scam that worked so well for many years has reached it "best before" date

LOL
0

#3 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

  Posted 05 March 2009 - 12:40 PM

View PostNoDrsl, on Mar 5 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

i have a question:

Had ACC utilised a better attitude / culture and claims management approach in investigating and making decisions on the claim, could have the costs of the reviewer and the courts system have been avoided.?

Hello No Drsl it is Darrell Pearce here. Very interesting case. I have never read a case like this until now where the judge has said that mediation is the solution. I think the judgment sets a benchmark in new zealand legal history by sending cases to mediation. And yet acc won't go to mediation in my case just goes to show you need a top judge. Anyway we should meet up sometime. Send me a reply to this e-mail [email protected] as my hotmail account is playing up. I hope to have it all sorted out soon. Anyway if you give me a ring my phone number is 06 7696440. We should meet up sometime let me know when.
I Look Forward To Your Reply Soon.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
P.S. We are friends okay.
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 March 2009 - 02:26 PM

Does this mean that if the ACC had not referred to the new information in the new decision if the Judge would have seen the same way.

It a bit like leaving the door open for them to just reword their decisions.

Still a major blow to them in the meantime and who said that perserverence doesnt pay off. It is about the only thing that does.

Another one for the little people.
0

#5 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 March 2009 - 06:57 PM

My post on this issue seems to be missing.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 March 2009 - 07:12 PM

It would seem that the majority of the 93 review hearing applications made by the reviewer Michael Dunn when you decided no jurisdiction on the basis of not needing to look at the additional information is wrong in law and that new information does require ACC to consider it and make a decision. The highest threshold of this type of thing is when the ACC decided not to reassess my claim for cover and entitlements October 1997 after my doctor described additional soft tissue damage had occurred recently increasing incapacity after the ACC decided to cancel my claim and entitlements August 1997.

As Barber J. Is being assigned to all of my cases and if the ACC do not successfully appeal his decision regarding the point of law on this matter ACC behaviour towards me is looking in a very very sorry state and that they would be very well advised to approach me for mediation right now.
0

#7 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

  Posted 05 March 2009 - 07:54 PM

View PostMINI, on Mar 5 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

Does this mean that if the ACC had not referred to the new information in the new decision if the Judge would have seen the same way.

It a bit like leaving the door open for them to just reword their decisions.

Still a major blow to them in the meantime and who said that perserverence doesnt pay off. It is about the only thing that does.

Another one for the little people.

Hi Mini it is Darrell here. I absolutely agree. The case shows how shonky acc decisions are. That lead to contentious reviews all the time. Any word from the judge in your appeal were you successful or unsuccessful. Any way if you want to contact me send an e-mail to this address [email protected] the e-mail address is my girlfriends so she gave the approval to use her e-mail address as my e-mail address is playing up.
I Look Forward To Your Reply Soon.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

#8 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 06 March 2009 - 10:03 AM

Hi Daryl no there is no reply to my IA review yet. Would be nice if there was. I wwill let you know.

Tankengine what is your post doing on this thread. It is nothing to do with it.

Mini
0

#9 User is offline   Tattoo 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 06 March 2009 - 10:14 AM

Mini, every thread is to do with Thomas. He has ever injury anyone else has had and everything anyone else experiences, he has experienced first.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:41 AM

Mini court decision that Warren has posted on this site is exactly on point and relevant to the issues we have been discussing. This decision limits the possibilities of ACC ignoring facts when making the original decision followed by continuing to ignore additional information given to them and goes on to remove the possibility of reviewers claiming to have no jurisdiction.

My case, which is familiar to many, has merely been presented as an example.

David and Mini please try to focus your mind and postings on the points of law and the issues rather than personalities so as to make the site more useful to all. If you disagree with a point that I have made I would be glad to discuss that with you.
0

#11 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:50 AM

Thomas, this court decision posted here has absolutely NOTHING to do with your case.

Stop blogging good threads with all your own stuff. Let that rest in your own thread.
We are not interested in your case anymore, you stuffed it up long ago.
It is only a matter of time and ACC will deal with you.
You do not have the brain or the knowledge to get you in the clear.

Stop blogging
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 March 2009 - 12:41 PM

Sparrow read the decision rather than getting your knickers in a twist
0

#13 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 06 March 2009 - 12:56 PM

T/E

We would discuss the very important case if we got the opportunity!!!

No doubt you already knew of it, so I take it Warren posted it for the rest of us, who didnt know about it.
0

#14 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 06 March 2009 - 01:36 PM

Mini, this silly fellow thinks that every decision posted up here applies to HIM.

He has neither the intelligence or discernment to see that his cases are entirely different.

He is doing nothing but wasting ACC time and the country's money with his constant litigation.

People have done the hard yrds. done research, got a good advocate/lawyer, got to court and won on good evidence. Then this boy comes along and tries to use it for his own gain.
the judges have already told him that other cases, ie Barnett, are not relevant to him.Then he has the cheek to tell me to read the decision!!
anyway boy you have reached your 2 hrs residual capacity so time to go back to bed.

The bad news Tomo is that you CANT use this case as you have submitted your submissions. Too bad eh!!
0

#15 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

  Posted 09 March 2009 - 07:05 AM

View PostSparrow, on Mar 6 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Mini, this silly fellow thinks that every decision posted up here applies to HIM.

He has neither the intelligence or discernment to see that his cases are entirely different.

He is doing nothing but wasting ACC time and the country's money with his constant litigation.

People have done the hard yrds. done research, got a good advocate/lawyer, got to court and won on good evidence. Then this boy comes along and tries to use it for his own gain.
the judges have already told him that other cases, ie Barnett, are not relevant to him.Then he has the cheek to tell me to read the decision!!
anyway boy you have reached your 2 hrs residual capacity so time to go back to bed.

The bad news Tomo is that you CANT use this case as you have submitted your submissions. Too bad eh!!

Hi Sparrow it is Darrell here. You are right . Tomo can't use this case as he will have to seek leave of the court to produce this case as evidence in his appeal. Anyway how does he know that judge Barber will be hearing his appeals. He has already had 4 appeals in the high court & lost all 4. I wouldn't be all surprised if judge barber told tomo to stop abusing the court system. He does not have a clue as to what you can & can't use. I mean decisions that go against him is what i am referring to. I also think that if he was successful acc would challenge that decision in the high court anyway. I think mini has a point he should wasting his breath when cases go against acc or the claimant. I think mini made the point when she had her appeal & she used my case as an example i didn't mind her using my case as an example. Anyway i think tomo has got be aware that he has to seek leave of the court to produce the decision of judge Barber as evidence in his appeal. If he has had 93 reviews i wonder how many he has won & how many has he lost.
I Look Forward To Your Reply Soon
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce
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