Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2019] NZSC 78

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 42/2019
[2019] NZSC 78

BETWEEN	MAREE HOWARD Applicant
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P A McBride for Respondent
Judgment:	24 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant wished to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the District Court dismissing her appeal to that Court against a review decision which had been made under s 134 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.[1]
[1]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2017] NZACC 76 (Judge Powell).
She applied to the District Court for leave to appeal against the District Court decision but leave was refused.[2] She then applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal to that Court but special leave was declined.[3] The effect of the High Court decision was that the applicant was not permitted to commence an appeal to the High Court against the District Court decision.
[2]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2018] NZACC 97 (Judge Christiansen).
[3]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2018] NZHC 3342 (Courtney J).
Nevertheless, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. This application was said to be advanced pursuant to s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. Section 56 of that Act provides:
56       Jurisdiction
(1)       The Court of Appeal may hear and determine appeals—
(a)       from a judgment, decree, or order of the High Court:
(b)      under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011:
(c)from any court or tribunal under any other Act that confers on the Court of Appeal jurisdiction and power to hear and determine an appeal.
(2)Subsection (1) is subject to subsections (3) and (5) and to rules made under section 148.
(3)No appeal, except an appeal under subsection (4), lies from any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application in respect of any civil proceeding unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is given by the High Court on application made within 20 working days after the date of that order or decision or within any further time that the High Court may allow.
(4)Any party to any proceedings may appeal without leave to the Court of Appeal against any order or decision of the High Court—
(a)striking out or dismissing the whole or part of a proceeding, claim, or defence; or
(b)      granting summary judgment.
(5)If the High Court refuses leave to appeal under subsection (3), the Court of Appeal may grant that leave on application made to the Court of Appeal within 20 working days after the date of the refusal of leave by the High Court.
(6)If leave to appeal under subsection (3) or (5) is refused in respect of an order or a decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory…

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 Howard 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: [2019] NZSC 78
Decision Date: 24 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Maree Howard, who sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal that had dismissed her application for leave to appeal to that Court against a decision of the High Court. The High Court had previously dismissed her application for leave to appeal against the District Court’s dismissal of her appeal against a review decision made under section 134 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Howard sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal but that application was dismissed by a Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal and, after an unsuccessful application for review of that decision, Howard applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The issue before the Court was whether Howard had a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision. The Court noted that, if Howard was successful, it would be required to accept that the specific appeal provisions in the Accident Compensation Act prevented any appeal being advanced by Howard but that the general appeal provisions in the Senior Courts Act allowed such an appeal. The Court found no realistic prospect of success in such an argument and dismissed Howard’s application for leave to appeal. The Court also awarded costs of $2,500 to the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Orders