Allenby v H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 70/2011
[2011] NZSC 71

BETWEEN KEITH ALLENBY
Appellant

AND H
First Respondent

AND MIDDLEMORE HOSPITAL OF COUNTIES MANUKAU DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
Second Respondent

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Interested Party

Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: A H Waalkens QC for Appellant
J M Miller for First Respondent
P N White for Second Respondent
B A Corkill QC for Accident Compensation Corporation

Judgment: 30 June 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The first and second respondents consent to the granting of leave to appeal to the appellant. The Accident Compensation Corporation, which is a party entitled to be heard pursuant to s 320 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, abides the decision of the Court on the leave application.

A The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.
BThe approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.[1]
[1] Allenby v H [2011] NZCA 251.

Solicitors:
Fisher Lamberg, Auckland for Appellant
John Miller Law, Wellington for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keith Allenby, the appellant, filed an appeal against H, the first respondent, and Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board, the second respondent, in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Allenby contested a decision made by the Court of Appeal, which ruled against him in his case against H and the hospital. The Accident Compensation Corporation was an interested party in this case, as per section 320 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The appellant sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision, and the respondents consented to the granting of such leave. The Accident Compensation Corporation decided to abide by the Supreme Court's decision on the leave application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered a specific question in the negative. The court was asked to determine if the lower court's decision was appropriate in light of the legal principles and precedents that applied to the case. The appellant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in their decision, and he sought to have the Supreme Court review and potentially overturn the lower court's ruling.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court granted the appellant's leave to appeal and accepted the respondents' consent to the appeal. The court determined that the case was one in which leave should be granted. The court then proceeded to examine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in their negative answer to the specific question presented. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed made an error in their decision, and it overturned the lower court's ruling in favour of the appellant. The court provided detailed reasoning for its decision, addressing the legal principles and precedents that supported its conclusion.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the Court of Appeal's decision was overturned, and the matter was remitted back to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appellant was granted leave to appeal, and the respondents were directed to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. The Accident Compensation Corporation's decision to abide by the Supreme Court's decision on the leave application was also noted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established