ACCforum: magnacarta - Viewing Profile - ACCforum

Jump to content

User Rating: ***--

Group:
Members
Active Posts:
2002 (0.34 per day)
Most Active In:
General Lounge (1389 posts)
Joined:
22-October 04
Profile Views:
20774
Last Active:
User is offline Private
Currently:
Offline

My Information

Member Title:
Advanced Member
Age:
Age Unknown
Birthday:
Birthday Unknown
Gender:
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information

E-mail:
Click here to e-mail me

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Assisted Recovery Team

    05 September 2020 - 10:46 AM

    I was most surprised to read the following arising in the case Turner v ACC (2016) when the Act prescribes that an appeal is a rehearing of the review decision

    Why bother with a costly and time-consuming review at all? :-

    Question 2 – Was the Learned Judge correct in law at paragraphs [17] and [18] of his judgment to find that it is not the place of the District Court to proscribe the review jurisdiction and behaviour of the Reviewer?


    [20] Judge Powell stated at paragraphs [17] and [18]:


    [17] Although I understand the frustration expressed by a number of claimants appearing in review hearings, that the process at the review hearings and the conduct of reviewers generally is not subject to appellate scrutiny in this Court, the attempt to utilise the present appeal for that purpose is misconceived.
    [18] The jurisdiction of reviewers, how they are to conduct hearings and how they are to make their decisions, is set out in sections 140-145 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. It is not the place of this Court to attempt to proscribe this jurisdiction. Instead, as I have set out on several occasions, the legislation is clear that appeals of decisions of reviewers to this Court are by way of rehearing. Matters relating to procedure at the review hearing will in general have no bearing on the outcome of appeals. Instead, on appeal, judges in this Court consider the substantive issues afresh on the basis of the evidence presented at review and any other evidence subsequently admitted in the course of hearing the appeal. As a result, in many cases this will mean that on appeal, the issues are in fact quite different from what they were at review.

    [21] As noted by Judge Powell in the decision, the statutory framework within which review hearings are to be conducted by Reviewers is clear. There is no basis for District Court intervention in proscribing guidelines for the conduct of review hearings.
    [22] I accept Mr Hunt’s submission that this question falls outside the substantive issue before the Reviewer and Judge Powell.
    [23] I am satisfied there is no question of law capable of bona fide argument arising in respect of this question.
  2. In Topic: The new ACC dispute review body

    28 March 2020 - 02:43 PM

    Keentohelp, I agree with you.

    I have similar issues with ICRA.

    I just wonder whether this contract that ICRA has with ACC is contracting people out of the Act contrary to s.299?

    I now have a copy of the contract released under the OIA between ICRA and ACC and it states that ICRA must comply with the law.

    ICRA is headed up by a John Green - if this is the same guy, he was a DRSL reviewer.

    I also wonder whether ICRA reviewers are not acting within jurisdiction because there is a distinction and a separate and sequential process in the Act between a review and a hearing and a telephone case conference and then a hearing only is simply not an investigative review.

    Time will tell!!!!
  3. In Topic: Reviews v Hearings

    10 January 2020 - 11:28 AM

    Hi Alan,

    Knowledge is power and ignorance punishes - as the old saying goes.

    Once you read what ACC publishes - on their website- and then apply that to your case and see the untruths and dishonesty, you can then use that ACC information in your communications with ACC.

    I've also become very concerned that New Zealand (the State Party) is failing to ensure that the Judges (and reviewers)operating in this jurisdiction are not violating a persons right to a fair and public hearing as guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

    That is international law which has the force of law in NZ by virtue of the Long Title of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

    The UN Human Rights Committee has jurisdiction to decide that and an individual communication has to be lodged.

    The system is not corrupt - the system has been corrupted - but the review and appeal system needs a major overhaul which some are working on.

    But never give up!!!!
  4. In Topic: Reviews v Hearings

    09 January 2020 - 11:00 AM

    Just be aware that ACC are masters of illusion and propaganda.

    You simply cannot believe all that ACC publishes or will keep its word and properly investigate matters with an ACC Minister who is nigh-on useless.

    When you realise from the outset that it's all about them and money and not about you, as an injured claimant, then it can be easier to deal with.