Dunn v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2025] NZHC 2189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-593 [2025] NZHC 2189

UNDER the Human Rights Act 1993

IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s 123 of the Human
Rights Act 1993

BETWEEN TROY DUNN
Appellant

ANDACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent

Hearing: 24 February 2025 Appearances: Appellant in Person (via VMR)
R L Roff for Respondent

Judgment: 6 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Dunn appeals a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) striking out his claim for damages and declarations that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has victimised him in breach of s 66 of the Human Rights Act 1993 when he was exercising his rights to take steps to obtain his full ACC entitlement. The Tribunal struck out Mr Dunn’s claim because it found that Mr Dunn’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action (the Tribunal Decision).1

1 Dunn v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZHRRT 41 (Decision under appeal).

DUNN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2025] NZHC 2189 [6 August 2025]

[2] On appeal, Mr Dunn argues that there is a reasonable cause of action for discrimination and victimisation, the Tribunal breached natural justice in its decision, his claim is not an abuse of process, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claim.

[3] ACC opposes the appeal, saying the Tribunal correctly determined Mr Dunn’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and properly invoked its discretion pursuant to s 115A of the Human Rights Act to strike the claim out.

[4]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

Background

[5] The Tribunal Decision conveniently outlines the background to Mr Dunn’s claim as follows:2
[5]To understand Mr Dunn’s claim some further background on the unhappy interaction between him and ACC and the nature of Mr Dunn’s allegations of victimisation are needed.

[6]Mr Dunn had an accident on 16 April 2013, injuring his back. Thereafter, at different times Mr Dunn received ACC entitlements, had those entitlements suspended and, in some instances, had those suspensions overturned.

[7]ACC first granted Mr Dunn cover for treatment and rehabilitation under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACC Act) but, in July 2013, declined him entitlement to weekly compensation. On 13 August 2013 Mr Dunn applied to review ACC’s decision under Part 5 of the ACC Act and the decision to decline his entitlement to weekly compensation was overturned on 26 September 2013.

[8]ACC did, however, suspend Mr Dunn’s entitlement to weekly compensation in August 2014 on the basis that he was ready to return to his pre-injury employment. On 10 September 2014 Mr Dunn lodged a complaint about the timeliness of ACC’s actions, the inadequacies of a particular report, and ACC’s lack of transparency. On 13 October 2014 Mr Dunn applied to review ACC’s suspension decision and, in December 2014, the decision was upheld. Mr Dunn then appealed the review decision to the District Court. In May 2017 ACC agreed to overturn the suspension decision and Mr…

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 Dunn v Accident Compensation Corporation 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 2189
Decision Date: 6 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Troy Dunn appeals against the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to strike out his claim for damages and declarations that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has victimised him in breach of s 66 of the Human Rights Act 1993. The Tribunal struck out Mr Dunn’s claim because it found that Mr Dunn’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Mr Dunn argues that there is a reasonable cause of action for discrimination and victimisation, the Tribunal breached natural justice in its decision, his claim is not an abuse of process, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claim. ACC opposes the appeal, saying the Tribunal correctly determined Mr Dunn’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and properly invoked its discretion to strike the claim out. The appeal is dismissed. The Court agrees with the Tribunal that Mr Dunn’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. The Court agrees that for Mr Dunn to succeed in his claim for victimisation under s 66, he must prove that ACC has treated him less favourably than ACC would treat other persons in the same or substantially similar circumstances because Mr Dunn has “otherwise done anything under or by reference to the Human Rights Act”. However, it is the actions of Mr Dunn that are to be under or by reference to the Human Rights Act, not internal policies of ACC that had to reference that Act. Mr Dunn was not exercising his rights under or by reference to the Human Rights Act, and instead at the time he exercised his rights of review and appeal of those ACC decisions he did so under or by reference to the Accident Compensation Act. There is no connection between the alleged victimisation and the Human Rights Act. The Court is also satisfied that the Tribunal followed the correct process in relation to the strike out application, and no breach of natural justice has been established. The Court is satisfied that Mr Dunn’s claim, in its current form, is an abuse of process. The Court agrees with ACC that in its current form, Mr Dunn’s amended statement of claim is prolix, difficult to follow and not appropriately particularised so that there is no comprehensible case to which ACC can meaningfully respond. The Court is also satisfied that the Tribunal did not err in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr Dunn’s claim.

Orders