Marsh v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2018] NZHC 421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-409-000014 [2018] NZHC 421

BETWEEN
ALISTER JOHN MARSH

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

H A Evans for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Marsh has filed documents with the High Court. In those documents, he seeks leave of the High Court to appeal 10 decisions of the District Court. The issue I deal with in this judgment is whether the applications for leave to the High Court are a nullity because they were not filed within time.

Background

[2] On 16 December 2016 in the District Court, Judge Powell issued decisions declining leave to appeal 11 decisions that had previously been made by the District Court on appeals under the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

MARSH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2018] NZHC 421 [14 March 2018]

[3] Mr Marsh sought to pursue his application for leave through the filing of extensive documents, filed at different times.

[4] In a minute of 28 April 2017, I directed there was to be a case management conference to discuss the future of the proceedings on 2 June 2017. In that minute, I directed Mr Marsh to file a memorandum setting out concisely which decisions he wished to appeal and the error of law he was seeking to address. I also directed ACC to file a memorandum dealing with any issues as to whether the applications for leave had been filed within time and the consequences if they contended this had not happened.

[5] The case management conference was eventually convened before Associate Judge Osborne on 30 August 2017.

[6] In his minute resulting from that conference, Associate Judge Osborne recorded that counsel for ACC accepted that the application filed on 6 January 2017 was within the 21 day period during which an application had to be filed. He noted that ACC was raising a preliminary issue as to whether applications associated with other documents had been filed within time. He set out a timetable for Mr Marsh and counsel for ACC to file memoranda as to that issue, with their submissions to then be referred to a Judge for this preliminary issue to be determined. Counsel for ACC did not seek an opportunity to present oral submissions but Associate Judge Osborne gave Mr Marsh the opportunity to request an oral hearing as to the issue.

Submissions

[7] In a memorandum of 4 September 2017, Mr Evans set out the relevant rules and authorities.1 Mr Evans referred the Court and Mr Marsh to various judgments in which the High Court held that, where legislation sets a time limit, that will prevail even if the High Court Rules provide an alternative timeframe for making the application and give the High Court the power to extend the timeframe.2

1 Accident Compensation Act 2001, ss 162(1) and (4); High Court Rules 2016, rr 1.17(1)-(2), 1.18 and…

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 Marsh 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: [2018] NZHC 421
Decision Date: 14 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with a case where Mr. Marsh sought leave to appeal 10 decisions made by the District Court, which had previously been declined by Judge Powell. The central issue was whether Mr. Marsh's applications for leave to appeal were filed within the required statutory timeframe, thus rendering them valid or a nullity. The legal issue revolved around interpreting the statutory time limits set by the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and whether the High Court could extend these timeframes under its own rules. Mr. Marsh argued that the applications were filed within time, citing various procedural arguments and seeking discretion from the Court to consider his intentions and circumstances.

The court examined Mr. Marsh's filings to determine if they constituted timely applications for leave to appeal. It found that Mr. Marsh's initial application, filed on 6 January 2017, did indeed seek leave to appeal all 10 decisions, as evidenced by the content of his submissions. Despite the failure to serve copies of these documents on the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), the court held that this procedural lapse did not invalidate the applications. The court further clarified that the statutory time limits were mandatory and could not be extended by the Court itself, referencing several precedents. Ultimately, the court concluded that Mr. Marsh's applications for leave to appeal were filed within the statutory timeframe and were not a nullity.

The court directed Mr. Marsh to file further, more focused submissions addressing the specific decisions and errors of law he wished to appeal, with strict page limits. It also set deadlines for ACC to respond and scheduled the applications for hearing. The court emphasized that it would not consider arguments relating to the process or factual decisions made by the District Court but would focus solely on the legal errors alleged.

Orders