Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2022] NZCA 8

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA665/2019
[2022] NZCA 8

BETWEEN	MAYBELLE KAPETA MATTHEWS Appellant
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent

Hearing:	25 November 2021
Court:	Kós P, French and Brown JJ
Counsel:	A C Beck and P G Schmidt for Appellant D A Laurenson QC and A S Butler for Respondent
Judgment:	3 February 2022 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe answer the first question submitted for determination by the Court under s 163 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001:
Was the High Court wrong to conclude that the first question of law posed by Collins J was moot, and accordingly, decline to answer it?
Answer: No.
BThe appeal is dismissed.
CWe make no award of costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

[1]Ms Matthews is the personal representative of her deceased partner Mr Auerua Aria. Before his death, Mr Aria lodged a claim with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The claim which was lodged as long ago as 2007 has been the subject of various decisions in both the District Court and High Court. Its procedural history can fairly be described as something of a quagmire.
[2]It came before us as the result of Ms Matthews being granted special leave under s 163 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act)[1] to appeal a decision of Grice J in the High Court. Grice J’s decision was itself an appeal from the District Court.[2] Grice J held the appeal was moot.[3]
[3]As we will explain, it became apparent at the hearing in this Court that the quagmire was largely due to the fact the claim has morphed over time. It also became apparent that there was a way out of the quagmire which we are hopeful this judgment will facilitate.

Background

[1]Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZCA 449 [Court of Appeal special leave judgment].

[2]Aria v Accident Compensation Corporation [2017] NZACC 38 [District Court substantive judgment].

[3]Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation [2019] NZHC 1509 [High Court substantive judgment] at [36].

[4]In 1974, shortly after the Accident Compensation scheme first came into force, Mr Aria was injured in a motorcycle accident. He sustained serious soft tissue and vascular injuries to his right leg and required surgery to try and correct some of the internal damage. He was left with a fixed flexion deformity being unable to fully extend his right knee and with an ankle that remained in a fixed position (ankle equinus). This meant he had to walk on the tips of his toes on his right foot.
[5]At the time of the accident, Mr Aria was only 17 and not working and so therefore not eligible for weekly earnings compensation. He did not make any claim to ACC.
[6]In 1975 Mr Aria gained employment at a meat processing plant. Despite his limp, he worked full time for almost all of the ensuing years until 2008.
[7]On 25 April 2007, he was…

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 Matthews 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] NZCA 8
Decision Date: 3 February 2022 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to determine whether the High Court had erred in finding that a question of law posed by Collins J was moot and thus declining to answer it. The appeal arose from a long-running claim made by Mr. Auerua Aria, who was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1974, which was initially not claimed for compensation. In 2007, Mr. Aria was bitten by an insect which caused his leg to become infected and ulcerate, leading him to file a claim with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). After unsuccessful surgeries, his lower leg was amputated. The District Court found that Mr. Aria's incapacity was caused by the 1974 accident, not the 2007 insect bite. Matthews, as the personal representative of Mr. Aria, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, which was granted. The High Court declined to answer the questions of law posed by Collins J, finding them moot.

The Court of Appeal found that the questions of law posed were problematic and not properly before the court. The appeal was limited to questions of law, yet one of the questions pertained to a fact-finding inquiry about the effects of surgery, which was not part of the original claim. The Court acknowledged that the Accident Compensation Act 2001 must be interpreted liberally but emphasized that new claims should not be raised on appeal, especially one limited to questions of law. The Court held that the High Court did not err in finding the first question moot and dismissed the appeal. The Court also noted that ACC was willing to re-engage with Matthews to pursue a new claim based on treatment injuries if she wished to do so. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Orders