Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2025] NZHC 1306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-377

[2025] NZHC 1306

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for leave to appeal

BETWEEN

CRAIG RICHARD JONES

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Judgment
(on the papers):
23 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Application for an extension of time]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 May 2025 at 2:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Medico Law Ltd, Auckland

Copy to:
The Applicant

JONES v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2025] NZHC 1306 [23 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Jones applies pursuant to s 111 of the Accident Compensation Corporation Act 1982 (1982 Act) for special leave to appeal a decision of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority (Authority) dated 5 September 2018 (5 September decision).1

[2] On 18 June 2019 the Authority declined Mr Jones’ leave to appeal the 5 September decision (the 2019 leave decision).2 Mr Jones applied to this Court for special leave to appeal on 24 February 2023, by which time the statutory time period for him to do so had long since passed.3 Mr Jones therefore applies for an extension of time within which to apply for special leave to appeal.

[3]Two preliminary issues that arise are:

(a)whether the Court has jurisdiction to extend time for Mr Jones to apply for special leave; and

(b)if so, whether the Court should grant the extension.

Factual and procedural history

[4] The dealings between Mr Jones and the Accident Compensation Corporation (Corporation) concerning the calculation of earnings-related compensation (ERC) paid to Mr Jones in respect of work related injuries he suffered from 1991 to 1992 have a long and complex history. Justice Muir helpfully summarised that history in his decision dismissing Mr Jones’ application for special leave to appeal a decision of the District Court declining his application to recall the 5 September decision and the 2019 leave decision:4

1      Jones v Accident Compensation Authority [2018] NZACA 3.
2      Jones v Accident Compensation Authority [2018] NZACA 6.
3      That statutory time period was either 21 days or 28 days, depending on the proper interpretation of s 391(1) and 391(1)(a) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and s 111 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982, as discussed at paragraphs [5] – [8] below.
4      Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation [2022] NZHC 2083 at [2] – [7]. (footnotes omitted.)

[2] On 17 July 1991, Mr Jones sprained his back in the course of his employment as a postal assistant with the New Zealand Post Office. Mr Jones was granted cover for the injury and paid ERC for three weeks in August 1991.

[3] After returning to work, Mr Jones suffered a second workplace injury on 29 January 1992. Mr Jones was recorded as unfit for any type of work from 10 February 1992 for several weeks. No separate claim file was made up for the accident with…

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 Jones 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 1306
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Richard Jones applied for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal a decision of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. The application was made pursuant to section 111 of the Accident Compensation Corporation Act 1982, which provides the High Court with discretion to grant an extension of time for a party to seek special leave. The decision in question, dated 5 September 2018, was made under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, which provides no jurisdiction for extending the time for an intending appellant to apply for special leave. The main issues for the court were whether it had the jurisdiction to extend time to apply for special leave and, if so, whether it should grant the extension.

The court determined that the differences between the 1982 Act and the 2001 Act concerning the extension of time to apply for special leave were substantive, not procedural. It held that s 111(4) of the 1982 Act preserved the Court's jurisdiction to extend time for an intending appellant to seek special leave. The court further considered the factors relevant to determining whether to grant an extension, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the strengths and merits of the appeal, and any prejudice to the Corporation if an extension was granted. The court found that although the delay was significant, Mr Jones might not unreasonably have believed that he was unable to apply for an extension of time. It granted the extension and set the new deadline for Mr Jones to apply for special leave to appeal the Authority's decision as 28 February 2023.

The court's decision was grounded in the preservation of substantive rights under the 1982 Act and a balanced consideration of the factors relevant to granting an extension. The matter is to be listed in the Civil Appeals List so that appropriate directions can be made to determine the application for special leave to appeal.

Orders