Accident Compensation Corporation v Algie - [2014] NZHC 1582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-852 [2014] NZHC 1582

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 1982

IN THE MATTER

of an application for leave to appeal under section 112 of that Act

BETWEEN

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Appellant

AND

JAMES ALGIE & ORS Respondents

Hearing: 4 July 2014

Counsel:

A S Butler and O C Gascoigne for Appellant
J M Miller and S R Lovegrove for Respondents

Judgment:

4 July 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, Wellington, for Appellant
John Miller Law, Wellington, for Respondent

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v ALGIE & ORS [2014] NZHC 1582 [4 July 2014]

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my judgment delivered on 7 March 2014. Section 112 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 provides that if a party to proceedings before the High Court is dissatisfied with the determination of the Court as being erroneous in point of law that party may, with the leave of the Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated for the opinion of the Court on a question of law only.

[2] The High Court may grant leave if it is of the opinion the question of law involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[3] As to the test to be applied in relation to the grant of leave, Mr Butler refers to the decision of this Court in Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation, which noted that the applicant must identify an issue of law that is capable of bona fide and serious argument which assumes sufficient importance to justify a further appeal, and the point must be of sufficient general or public importance, or there must be some other reason why it should be submitted to the Court of Appeal for
decision.1

[4] I say at the outset that I have reached the view that leave should be granted. I say that now because it is relevant to the extent of reasons that I should give for reaching that view. It is generally appropriate when a Court grants leave to appeal to say less rather than more, since the judgment must stand for itself and it is not appropriate to make any further comment on the judgment itself. Giving brief reasons, I consider that the question raised is capable of bona fide and serious argument. Both counsel have addressed quite extensive submissions directed to the merits of the question. I do not address those submissions because it would not be appropriate to do so on this application for leave. Suffice it to say that it cannot be said that the answer to the question is so clear that it cannot be capable of bona fide and serious argument.

[5] As to whether it is a question of general or public importance, it is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Accident Compensation Corporation v Algie and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 1582
Decision Date: 4 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Accident Compensation Corporation v Algie [2014] NZHC 1582 was an application for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered on 7 March 2014, concerning an issue under the Accident Compensation Act 1982. The Accident Compensation Corporation sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding a determination made by the High Court that a claim for payment for unpaid attendant care was permitted under sections 121(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1972 and 80(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982. The respondents, James Algie and others, opposed the application.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Accident Compensation Corporation was entitled to leave to appeal the High Court's decision on the interpretation of sections 121(1) and 80(1) of the respective Acts. The court considered whether the question of law involved in the appeal was one that ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for its opinion due to its general or public importance. The court also evaluated if the question was capable of bona fide and serious argument.

The High Court, represented by MacKenzie J, determined that leave to appeal should be granted. The court considered the issue as one capable of bona fide and serious argument and held that the case had general and public importance as it involved a common point relevant to multiple claimants. Furthermore, the court noted that the question of law was substantially similar to one previously considered by the Court of Appeal in Simpson v Accident Compensation Corporation, which had been deemed of sufficient importance to warrant an appeal. Therefore, the court found that the question of law involved in the appeal met the criteria for leave to appeal under section 112 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, and the specific question of law to be considered by the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court was erroneous in law when it determined that a claim for payment for unpaid attendant care is permitted under sections 121(1) and 80(1) of the respective Acts. The Accident Compensation Corporation was directed to prepare the case for appeal within 28 days.

Orders