Accident Compensation Corporation v D - [2023] NZHC 266

UNDER S 160(1)(b) OF THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ORDER FORBIDDING PUBLICATION

OF THE RESPONDENT’S NAME AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-174

[2023] NZHC 266

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under s 162 of the Act to appeal to the High Court on question of law

BETWEEN

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Appellant

AND

D

Respondent

Hearing: 21 November 2022

Appearances:

A S Butler KC for the Appellant

B H Woodhouse and M J McKillop for the Respondent

Judgment:

23 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors
A S Butler KC, Wellington
B H Woodhouse, Barrister, Wellington M J McKillop, Barrister, Wellington

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v D [2023] NZHC 266 [23 February 2023]

What happened?

D’s injuries and claim

[1] D was born in Russia in August 2001.1 In August 2004, when he was three years old, he was adopted by New Zealanders and immigrated to New Zealand.

[2] In November 2019, D was diagnosed with severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) caused by physical injuries he suffered before he was three. D made a claim for cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act).

[3] The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) declined to accept the claim for cover. In February 2020, that was confirmed on review. Relevantly, the reviewer concluded:

(a)under ss 20 and 22 of the Act, the personal injury was not suffered in New Zealand and D was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand at the time it occurred; and

(b)under s 36(2) of the Act, the date on which a person suffers mental injury because of physical injuries, is the date on which the physical injuries are suffered.

District Court judgment

[4] On 5 August 2021, in the District Court at Wellington, Judge P A Cunningham held, in summary:2

(a)D’s PTSD is a mental injury as a consequence of physical injuries under s 26(1)(c) of the Act.3 Section 36(2) of the Act deems that the date such a mental injury is suffered is the date of the physical injury.

1 Given the sensitive nature of this matter, as in the District Court, the name and identifying particulars of the respondent are anonymised and suppressed under s 160(1)(b) of the Act, by consent.
2 D v Accident Compensation Corporation [2021] NZACC 125.
3 At [1].

(b)Section 22 of the Act requires a person to be ordinarily resident in New Zealand to have cover. D was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand at the date of his physical injuries.4 The fact D’s parents were employed from New Zealand was not enough to establish that under s 17 of the Act. They were not working overseas when they travelled to northern Europe to adopt him.

(c)But Accident Compensation Corporation v Monk held that it does not matter that there was no cover for the physical injuries.5 D just needs to have suffered them.6 The…

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 D 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: [2023] NZHC 266
Decision Date: 23 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Accident Compensation Corporation v D, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of a claimant, D, for cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. D, who suffered from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to physical injuries sustained before he was three years old, sought compensation for his mental injury. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had declined D’s claim, arguing that the physical injuries were not suffered in New Zealand and that D was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand at the time of the incident. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 26(1)(c), 20(1)(a), and 36(2) of the Act, particularly whether the physical injury needed to be covered under the Act for D’s mental injury to be eligible.

The court found that the mental injury suffered by D was indeed a personal injury as defined under the Act, and that the physical injury need not be covered to qualify the mental injury for compensation. The key issue was whether the physical injury needed to occur in New Zealand for the mental injury to be covered, a point on which the District Court and the High Court differed. The High Court upheld the District Court’s decision, holding that the mental injury was covered regardless of the location where the physical injury occurred. The court emphasized that the purpose of the Act is to provide cover for mental injuries, and that the statutory scheme does not require the physical injury to be covered for the mental injury to qualify. The court also noted that the interpretation of the Act consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 did not alter the outcome, as the statutory regime's inherent limitation on cover related to the location of the injury was considered reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court affirmed that D was eligible for cover for his mental injury under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The court reserved the right for D to apply for costs if desired, setting a timeline for submissions and responses regarding any such application.

Orders