Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2022] NZHC 2083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-735

[2022] NZHC 2083

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

Of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

BETWEEN

CRAIG RICHARD JONES

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 27 July 2022

Counsel:

Applicant in person

L Hawes-Gandar and F Becroft for Respondent (All by VMR)

Judgment:

22 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

[Re: leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 August 2022 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Medico Law Limited, Auckland

JONES v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 2083 [22 August 2022]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Mr Jones, seeks the special leave of this Court to appeal a decision of Judge Sinclair declining an application to recall a decision by the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority (Authority). He does so having been declined leave by that Judge.

Background

[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 earnings related compensation (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 ERC payments being processed under the July 1991 claim.

[4] On 13 April 1992, Mr Jones resumed work but injured his back within one hour of his return. He was certified as unfit to work. The injury was treated as a fresh accident event and a new claim file was opened. ERC was assessed based on an accident occurring on 13 April 1992.

[5] On 2 November 1992, Mr Jones attended a work trial and his weekly compensation was stopped. On 26 January 1993, Mr Jones was certified as unfit to work and payments restarted. The Corporation recalculated his ECR on the basis that there was a new period of incapacity from January 1993. Mr Jones sought review of that decision and in a decision dated 31 March 1994, a reviewer determined that Mr Jones had been continuously incapacitated from 13 April 1992, up to and beyond January 1993. The reviewer directed a recalculation of Mr Jones’ ECR on the basis of his earnings for the period immediately prior to his injury on 13 April 1992.

[6] In March 2015, Mr Jones again contested the calculation of his ECR with the Corporation. His claim was investigat and a new decision was issued in a decision

letter dated 20 June 2017 (the decision letter). The Corporation accepted that the incapacity from 13 April 1992 was related to the incapacity in the two months preceding. For that reason, the Corporation concluded…

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: [2022] NZHC 2083
Decision Date: 22 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Richard Jones sought special leave to appeal a decision of Judge Sinclair declining an application to recall a decision by the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority (Authority). This appeal was declined by Judge Spiller. Mr Jones now seeks special leave to appeal Judge Spiller's decision. The legal issues were whether there was a seriously arguable question that the District Court was wrong in concluding it did not have jurisdiction to recall the substantive decision, and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant special leave. The Court found that the decision of Judge Sinclair was correct and that even if the Court had the power to order recall of the Authority’s substantive decision, there was no reasonable prospect that it would do so in this case. The application was dismissed. In the unlikely event any issue as to costs arises, memoranda are to be exchanged on a specified timetable.

Orders