Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2021] NZHC 3372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2021-404-001326

[2021] NZHC 3372

UNDER The Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for special leave to appeal pursuant to s 162 of the Act

BETWEEN

IRENE GOH

Appellant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

CORPORATION (of Wellington) Respondent

Hearing: 23 November 2021

Appearances:

Appellant in person with M Murphy as McKenzie friend S M Bisley and L W D Kibblewhite for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[reasons for decision]

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 December 2021 at 3.30pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Auckland Copy to:
The Appellant

GOH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (of Wellington) [2021] NZHC 3372 [9 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Ms Goh has applied for special leave under s 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACC Act) to appeal a decision of Judge AA Sinclair in the District Court on 4 September 2020,1 after Judge K D Kelly in the District Court refused leave to appeal in the first instance.2

[2] Judge Sinclair dismissed Ms Goh’s appeal against a decision of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in August 2019 refusing to review a decision it took in 2005 (the 2005 Decision) regarding Ms Goh’s entitlement to backdated weekly compensation under the ACC Act and ACC’s obligation under the ACC Act to deduct from the compensation paid to Ms Goh a proportion of the benefits Ms Goh had received from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in respect of the same period.

[3] The present application and appeals are the Ms Goh’s most recent attempt to challenge the 2005 Decision. In form, the application relates to ACC’s decision of 16 August 2019, dismissing Ms Goh’s review application. In substance, it seeks a reconsideration of the 2005 Decision which has already been comprehensively considered and conclusively determined in earlier decisions of the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal.

[4] In addition, Ms Goh has misunderstood the factual and legal bases on which she has sought to advance her appeal – namely the rate at which her MSD benefit was abated for the purposes of the deduction made by ACC and the relevance and effect of an unrelated decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding the consistency of deductions made under s 71A of the Social Security Act 1964 with rights recognised under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.

[5] For these reasons, Ms Goh’s appeal is not capable of bona fide and serious argument. In addition, the appeal raises no question of general or public importance

1 Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZACC 119.
2 Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation [2021] NZACC 90.

and no question of private interest of sufficient importance to outweigh the delay and cost of a further appeal.

[6] At the conclusion of…

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 Goh 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: [2021] NZHC 3372
Decision Date: 9 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation, the High Court dismissed Irene Goh's application for special leave to appeal the District Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal its dismissal of Ms Goh's appeal against a decision of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to reject a review of its decision in 2005 to refuse to review its decision to reimburse the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) under s 252 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACC Act). The 2005 Decision required ACC to reimburse the MSD for the sum it had paid to Ms Goh in respect of the period for which Ms Goh was receiving backdated compensation. Ms Goh's application was her most recent attempt to challenge the 2005 Decision, which had already been conclusively determined by the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. Ms Goh's current challenge was based on the argument that the deduction made by ACC was discriminatory and inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court found that the application was misconceived and had no prospect of success. Ms Goh's application was an abuse of process. The Court awarded costs to ACC on a 2B basis and directed that any further proceeding which was an attempt to revisit the 2005 Decision should be referred to a Judge for consideration as to whether it should be struck out for abuse of process.

Orders