Alliance Group Limited v Feaver - [2025] NZHC 97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-167

[2025] NZHC 97

BETWEEN
ALLIANCE GROUP LIMITED

Appellant

AND

SHONA FEAVER

First Respondent

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Second Respondent

Hearing: 9 December 2024

Appearances:

H A Evans for Appellant

P J Sara for First Respondent (By way of VMR) No appearance for Second Respondent

Judgment:

10 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 February 2025 at 11 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ALLIANCE GROUP LIMITED v FEAVER [2025] NZHC 97 [10 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] The first respondent, Shona Feaver, has worked for many years as a meat packer, employed by the applicant, Alliance Group Ltd (AGL).

[2] In 2015 she filed a claim for cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) for a work-related gradual process injury, described as “shoulder impingement bursitis”. The appellant (which is an accredited employer as defined in the Act) declined the claim for cover in October 2015. That decision was upheld on review.

[3] In June 2018, Ms Feaver appealed the review decision to the District Court. On 18 December 2023, Judge C J McGuire allowed Ms Feaver’s appeal (the District Court decision).1 AGL then applied for leave to appeal the District Court decision.
On 26 March 2024, Judge Spiller declined AGL’s application for leave to appeal.2

[4] AGL now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal the District Court decision, pursuant to s 162 of the Act.

Background

[5] To understand why AGL says there were errors of law in the District Court decision, it is necessary to outline, in some detail, the history of Ms Feaver’s claim and the findings of the medical reports which are relied on by the respective parties to support or oppose it.

[6] Ms Feaver began working for AGL in the 1997/98 season, initially as a labourer. From 2000 onwards, she worked as a meat packer, placing cuts of meat into a carton and transferring filled boxes onto a conveyer belt. She also undertook work in the carton room, assembling cardboard cartons and installing plastic liners in them.

[7] Ms Feaver’s medical history reveals longstanding problems with her shoulders. On 9 March 1995, she underwent a left shoulder arthroscopy where it was found she

1 Feaver v ACC [2023] NZACC 210.
2 Feaver v ACC [2024] NZACC 051.

had a “marked prominence of the anterior acromion with impingement up on the upper surface of the cuff.” She had further surgery on 10 May 1995 which involved a “formal anterior acromioplasty” and a “cuff repair” procedure. Mr Denholm, her orthopaedic surgeon, reported that an x-ray showed “extensive congenital fusion of the C3-C6 vertebrae” which he considered to be “very likely … the cause of much of the pain you are getting in your neck and out to your arms.”

[8] On 17 March 2013, Ms Feaver injured her right shoulder when…

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 Alliance Group Limited v Feaver 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: [2025] NZHC 97
Decision Date: 10 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alliance Group Limited sought special leave to appeal a decision of the District Court which had allowed a claim for cover under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 for a work-related gradual process injury. Shona Feaver had worked as a meat packer for many years. She filed a claim for cover in 2015 for a work-related gradual process injury, described as “shoulder impingement bursitis”. Alliance Group Limited declined the claim and the decision was upheld on review. Ms Feaver appealed the review decision to the District Court which allowed her appeal. Alliance Group Limited then applied for leave to appeal the District Court decision. The High Court considered whether there were arguable questions of law, which were of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal. The High Court found that there were two arguable questions of law and granted leave to appeal. The first issue was whether the District Court failed to provide reasons as to why the respondent’s expert medical evidence should be preferred over AGL. The High Court found that the District Court failed to engage with the expert evidence and provide reasons for preferring one expert’s opinion over another. The second issue was whether the District Court failed to apply the statutory test under s 30 of the Act for whether a gradual process injury had occurred to determine that Ms Feaver had suffered a work-related gradual process injury. The High Court found that the District Court did not adequately consider s 30 of the Act and failed to analyse the claim in light of the statutory test. The High Court granted leave to appeal because the questions of law were of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

Orders