Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2020] NZCA 449

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA665/2019
[2020] NZCA 449

BETWEEN	MAYBELLE KAPETA MATTHEWS Applicant
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent

Court:	Clifford and Courtney JJ
Counsel:	A C Beck for Applicant A S Butler for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	25 September 2020 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the questions of law at [44].

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

Maybelle Kapeta Matthews applies pursuant to s 163 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) for leave to bring a second appeal. Ms Matthews has been substituted, with the consent of the respondent, Accident Compensation Corporation Ltd (ACC), in these proceedings in place of her late husband Auerua Aria.[1] Mr Aria was tragically killed in a boating accident in 2016.
[1]Matthews v Accident Compensation Corp [2018] NZHC 2769.
We have decided to grant leave for a second appeal. We note, however, the facts are complicated and the law difficult. Given those considerations, and the history of this matter, we consider it appropriate to explain our reasoning for granting leave in those terms in greater detail than would normally be called for in a decision granting leave.

Background[2]

[2]We note we consulted the hearing bundle from the High Court file, CIV-2008-404-1087, in the course of preparing this judgment.

In 1974 Mr Aria, then aged 17, had a motorcycle accident that caused permanent damage to his right leg: thereafter he could not fully extend his right knee and had only a limited ability to flex his right foot. Mr Aria was not employed at the time of that accident. The relevant legislation at that time was the, original, Accident Compensation Act 1972. It is not clear whether Mr Aria filed an ACC claim at the time. Nor have we seen any consideration of Mr Aria’s entitlements under that legislation or, if any, their nature. Notwithstanding the impact of his injuries on his mobility, Mr Aria obtained and continued employment as a boner in a freezing works for 33 years from 1975 until May 2008. One of the effects of Mr Aria’s 1974 injury was arterial damage, causing a loss of circulation. That predisposed Mr Aria to the development of ulcers on his affected lower right leg.
The dispute which Mr Aria had with ACC, and which is now continued by his wife, relates to the circumstances which brought his ability to work as a boner to an end in May 2008.
Mr Aria suffered an insect bite at work on 25 April 2007. The wound became infected. On 6 June 2007 Mr Aria’s GP filed an ACC injury claim form on the basis of that workplace accident. Weekly compensation was not claimed. The materials we have reviewed would not appear to include the outcome, at the time, of that application. We infer Mr Aria continued working.
Ulcers developed in the affected area. Mr Aria received…

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: [2020] NZCA 449
Decision Date: 25 September 2020 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews v Accident Compensation Corporation involves an application for special leave to appeal a decision of the High Court, which had previously dismissed an appeal brought by Maybelle Kapeta Matthews, the widow of Auerua Aria, against the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The dispute centres on whether Mr Aria was entitled to weekly compensation following an injury he sustained at work in 2007, which aggravated a pre-existing injury from a 1974 motorcycle accident. The Court of Appeal granted special leave to appeal on three specific questions of law, focusing on the causal connection between the 2007 workplace injury and Mr Aria’s subsequent incapacity to work.

The primary legal issues addressed by the Court of Appeal pertained to the interpretation and application of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The key questions involved whether a subsequent injury that aggravates a pre-existing condition can be considered a cause of incapacity under the Act, and if such an aggravation can justify weekly compensation. The Court of Appeal scrutinized the reasoning of the High Court, which had declined to answer these questions, deeming them moot. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had not properly addressed the questions of law, and thus, granted leave for a second appeal to clarify these issues.

The Court of Appeal's reasoning was rooted in the importance of resolving the legal questions posed by the High Court. They emphasized the necessity of determining whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the questions of law were moot. Additionally, they identified the need to address whether a physical injury that aggravates a pre-existing condition can serve as a cause of incapacity under the Act. The Court also considered whether Mr Aria’s inability to return to work was due to the aggravation of his pre-existing injuries, rather than the original injuries themselves.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal granted special leave on three questions: whether the High Court was wrong to find the questions moot, whether a subsequent injury aggravating a pre-existing condition can justify weekly compensation, and whether Mr Aria’s incapacity was due to the aggravation of his pre-existing conditions. The costs associated with the application are reserved pending the determination of the substantive appeal.

Orders