Bruce v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Wellington CIV 2008 485 411

[2008] NZHC 2243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2008 485 411

IN THE MATTER OF     the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and

Compensation Act 2001

BETWEEN  SUSAN BRUCE Appellant

ANDACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing:         17 July 2008

Counsel:         Appellant in person

J E Castle for respondent

Judgment:      28 July 2008

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1]      This judgment is to be read together with the Minute I issued in the matter on

17 July 2008.

[2]      After  careful  enquiries  that  I  have  caused  to  be  made  with  staff  in  the

Wellington High Court Registry, I am satisfied:

a)       No staff member provided Ms Bruce with “Private Bag 32001” as an appropriate mailing address for this Court.

b)Experience in other cases suggests that where applications for leave to appeal are sent to the Tribunals Division of the Ministry of Justice, they are forwarded on by staff at that location, to the High Court

Registry.  There is no record of that having occurred on this occasion.

BRUCE V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION  HC WN CIV 2008 485 411  28 July 2008

c)        The date endorsed by the Registry on the first document filed, namely

29 February 2008, is the application which is dated 27 February 2008. Ms Bruce’s application for waiver of fees is dated by her 25 February

2008, but there is no independent record of that having been received prior to the filing of the application itself, and the waiver application was dealt with on 29 February 2008.

d)There appears to be no explanation as to why, if Ms Bruce considered in late February that she had pursued an application for special leave by posting a document intended to have that effect to Private Bag

32001 on 15 February, she should then file a second document intended  to  have  the  same  effect  on  29  February,  without  any evidence that the earlier document had been rejected, or was in any way inadequate.

[3]      In all these circumstances, I find that no application for special leave was commenced within 21 days after 1 February 2008.   The authorities are clear that there  is  no  discretion  to  extend  the  time  limit  specified  in  s 162  of  the  Injury Prevention,  Rehabilitation  and  Compensation  2001  –  Saipe  v  Accident Compensation Corporation HC AK CIV 2008 404 1053 10 April 2008 Venning J.

[4]      Accordingly, the application is necessarily dismissed on the basis that it is out of time.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Appellant in person

ACC Legal Services, Wellington for Respondent