J v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2017] NZSC 3

NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 93/2016
[2017] NZSC 3

BETWEEN	J (SC 93/2016) Applicant
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent

Leave Hearing:	25 November 2016
Court:	William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A C Beck for Applicant A S Butler for Respondent
Judgment:	9 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by William Young J)

The applicant is in dispute with the Accident Compensation Corporation in relation to what she claims is an entitlement to weekly compensation. This dispute was resolved in her favour in the District Court[1] but that Court’s decision was reversed on appeal by Nation J.[2] She now seeks leave to appeal direct to this Court against Nation J’s judgment.
[1]J v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 222 (Judge Powell) at [19].
[2]Accident Compensation Corporation v J [2016] NZHC 1683, [2016] 3 NZLR 551 at [73]–[74].
Primarily in issue is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal.
The appeal to the High Court which resulted in the judgment of Nation J was pursuant to s 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Section 163 provides:
163 Appeal to Court of Appeal on question of law
(1) A party to an appeal before the High Court under section 162 who is dissatisfied with any determination or decision of the Court on the appeal as being wrong in law may, with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated for the opinion of that court on a question of law only.
(2) If the High Court refuses to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.
…
(4) The decision of the Court of Appeal on any application for leave to appeal, or on an appeal under this section, is final.
Section 163 was enacted prior to the establishment of this Court and can be fairly taken to reflect the view that the Privy Council should not be troubled by appeals which were against, or consequent upon, decisions of the High Court under s 163.
The applicant relies on s 8 of the Supreme Court Act 2003:[3]
8 Appeals against decisions of High Court in civil proceedings
The Supreme Court can hear and determine an appeal by a party to a civil proceeding in the High Court against any decision made in the proceeding, unless—
(a)an enactment other than this Act makes provision to the effect that there is no right of appeal against the decision; or
(b)the decision is a refusal to give leave or special leave to appeal to the High Court or the Court of Appeal; or
(c) the decision was made on an interlocutory application.
[3]In identical terms see s 69 Senior Courts Act…

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 J 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: [2017] NZSC 3
Decision Date: 9 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of J v Accident Compensation Corporation involves an appeal brought by the applicant against a decision made by the High Court in a civil proceeding. The applicant sought to appeal to the Supreme Court under s 8 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, challenging the decision of the High Court. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the applicant had the right to appeal the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court, despite the absence of explicit statutory provisions allowing such an appeal in the Accident Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court examined the legislative history and the intent behind the Supreme Court Act to determine the scope of its appellate jurisdiction. The Court noted that the legislature had been aware of certain appeal restrictions that would prevent certain judgments from being challenged in the Supreme Court. Despite this awareness, no amendments were made to the appeal provisions of the Accident Compensation Act, suggesting that the legislature intended to maintain those restrictions. The Court also considered the advisory group's recommendation for a comprehensive review of statutory appeal rights, which was not fully implemented in the Accident Compensation Act.

The Court concluded that the statutory language of the Supreme Court Act did not clearly restrict the Court's jurisdiction in this context. However, given the specific exclusions in the Accident Compensation Act, the Court held that the applicant did not have the right to appeal the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. This decision underscores the importance of statutory language and legislative intent in determining the scope of appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision as final and binding. This ruling highlights the need for careful consideration of statutory provisions and legislative history when interpreting appellate rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The applicant relies on s 8 of the Supreme Court Act 2003:[3]8 Appeals against decisions of High Court in civil proceedingsThe Supreme Court can hear and determine an appeal by a party to a civil proceeding in the High Court against any decision made in the proceeding, unless—(a)an enactment other than this Act makes provision to the effect that there is no right of appeal against the decision; or(b)the decision is a refusal to give leave or special leave to appeal to the High Court or the Court of Appeal; or(c) the decision was made on an interlocutory application.[3]In identical terms see s 69 Senior Courts Act 2016, which comes into force on 1 March 2017, per s 2. The Supreme Court Act was preceded by the report of the Advisory Group, Replacing the Privy Council: A New Supreme Court.[4] The Advisory Group was of the view that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should be comprehensive.[5] Associated with this, it recommended a review of statutory appeal rights:[6] The group considers that the various statutes limiting appeals to the Court of Appeal and other courts should be analysed to determine whether there should be any exceptions to the general principle that any matter should be able to be appealed to the Supreme Court with the leave of that Court.[4]Replacing the Privy Council: A New Supreme Court (Office of the Attorney-General, April 2002).[5]At [64]–[72].[6]At [71]. The Supreme Court Bill, as introduced, contained a schedule which corresponds to sch 1 of the Supreme Court Act which inserts references, and rights of appeal, to the Supreme Court in a number of statutes.[7] Plainly there must have been a review along the lines contemplated by the Advisory Group but whether it was completely comprehensive is unclear. What is primarily significant for present purposes is that no amendments were made to the appeal provisions of the Accident Compensation Act.[7]Supreme Court Bill 2002 (16-1), sch 1. Clauses 7(a) and 8(a) of the Supreme Court Bill as introduced (which later became ss 7(a) and 8(a)) excluded rights of appeal to the Supreme Court when “an enactment other than this Act makes provision to the effect that the decision is final or binding”. When the Justice and Electoral Committee reported back on the Bill, there was a majority recommendation that these words be struck out and replaced by the present words.[8] The reasons for this change are of no moment for present purposes. What is important is that this change, along with the legislative history to which we have referred, shows that the legislature was well aware that there continued to be appeal restrictions which would prevent certain judgments being challenged in the Supreme Court. [8]Supreme Court Bill 2002 (16-2) (Select Committee Report) at 51. In cases which concern jurisdiction, this Court has taken a reasonably expansive approach. For instance, in Guo v Minister of Immigration the Court observed: [9]In interpreting the Supreme Court Act on the issue of jurisdiction, our approach is to consider whether the statutory language clearly restricts the Court’s jurisdiction. If it does not, that is a powerful indicator that the Court has jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.