Khan v Accident Compensation Corporation
[2016] NZHC 2216
•20 September 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2015-404-002750 [2016] NZHC 2216
BETWEEN YOUMNA KHAN
Applicant
AND
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
Applicant in person
D K L Tuiqereqere for RespondentJudgment:
20 September 2016
JUDGMENT NO 2 OF PALMER J (Rehearing and costs)
This judgment is delivered by me on 20 September 2016 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Solicitor:
Medico Law Limited, Auckland
And to:
Applicant
KHAN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (NO 2) [2016] NZHC 2216 [20 September 2016]
appeal two District Court decisions regarding her entitlement to accident compensation.1 I characterised the application as “the latest in a long line of attempts to challenge the finality of issues that have been decided by the courts”.2
Application for rehearing
[2] Mrs Khan now applies under rr 20.19 and 7.49 of the High Court Rules for a rehearing. I decline this application because:
(a) Rule 20.19(3)(a) and (6) concern the relief a court may grant on appeal. That does not apply here. Rule 7.49 entitles a court to vary or rescind an interlocutory order if satisfied it is wrong. But the judgment of 29 July 2016 was not an interlocutory order. And I am not satisfied the judgment is wrong; I am satisfied it is correct.
(b) Mrs Khan submits her husband, who appeared at the hearing of
31 May 2016 “as her agent”, sought an adjournment to engage a lawyer but I refused the application. None of the court records, my notes nor Mr Tuiqereqere’s notes, indicate there was any such application or decision. If an application for adjournment had been made I can see no reasons why it should have been granted. The
31 May hearing was set down on 1 March 2016. Mr Khan, who travelled from Australia for the hearing, began the hearing by explaining he had been relying on a barrister to come from Australia but he had another commitment.
(c) A new argument, which is not documented before me, that a Notice of Opposition was not filed in the District Court in 2014, could not justify reopening District Court decisions of 2004 and 2005 or
rehearing this case.
1 Khan v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZHC 1756.
The Khans have made persistent but futile efforts to challenge Judge
Barber’s 2004 and 2005 decisions. That must stop.
Costs
[4] In the judgment of 29 July 2016 I indicated I could see no reason why costs should not follow the event “on a category 2 basis or even, possibly, on an indemnity basis”.4 If the parties could not agree on costs I granted leave for them to file memoranda.
[5] ACC seeks an award at a scale rate on a category 2 basis amounting to
$5,373.38. Mrs Khan’s husband, Mr S A Khan, appeared as her agent at the hearing.
He opposes the costs sought by ACC.
[6] Mr Khan submits he “made application for further extension of time to check the District Court rules enabling to counsel submits (sic) his submission to the court” and that I granted an extension as well as a right to reply to the respondent’s subsequent submissions. He suggests judgment was issued before the reply to the reply was filed.
[7] This is not relevant to costs. Furthermore, it is not correct. Court records and my notes of the hearing indicate I permitted Mr Khan, on behalf of Mrs Khan, to file and serve further written submissions by 5 pm Friday 4 June 2016 although he sought only until Thursday 3 June 2016. I permitted ACC to file and serve further written submissions in reply by 5 pm Friday 10 June 2016. I did not permit a further reply to the respondent’s submissions. As recorded in my judgment, 14 pages of additional submissions accompanied by an affidavit and exhibits were filed on
7 June 2016 and were taken into account.5
3 At [26].
4 At [32].
Palmer J
0