McCafferty v Accident Compensation Corporation Ca140/03 - [2003] NZCA 245

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA140/03
BETWEENBERNADETTE MARY MCCAFFERTY

Appellant

ANDACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing:16 October 2003

Coram:Gault P
Panckhurst J
William Young J
Appearances: G Minchin for Appellant

D Tuiqereqere and N Lawson for Respondent

Judgment:16 October 2003
Reasons:31 October 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DELIVERED BY WILLIAM YOUNG J

Introduction
[1]       This was a purported appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Randerson J declining Mrs Bernadette McCafferty leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court dismissing Mrs McCafferty’s appeal from a review officer’s decision upholding a refusal of the Accident Compensation Corporation not to pay her compensation for loss of earnings.
[2]       When the case was called for argument, we discussed with counsel whether we had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. At the conclusion of this discussion, we were of the view that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the purported appeal and accordingly we dismissed it. It is, however, appropriate for us to record briefly the reasons for our conclusion.
The legislative provisions governing appeals to this Court
[3]       The relevant right to appeal to this Court is provided for by s166, Accident Insurance Act 1998.   To put that section in context, however, it is necessary to refer to s165 as well. The two sections provide:-
165     Appeal to High Court on question of law
(1)     A party to an appeal who is dissatisfied with the decision of the District Court as being wrong in law may, with the leave of the District Court, appeal to the High Court.
(2)     The leave of the District Court must be sought under Part 5 of the District Courts Act 1947 and within 21 days after the District Court's decision.
(3)     If the District Court refuses to grant leave, the High Court may grant special leave to appeal.
(4)     The special leave of the High Court must be sought under Part 5 of the District Courts Act 1947 and within 21 days of the District Court's refusing leave.
(5)     Sections 72 to 78A of the District Courts Act 1947 apply, with any necessary modifications, to an appeal to the High Court under this section.
166     Appeal to Court of Appeal on question of law
(1)     A party to an appeal before the High Court under section 165 who is dissatisfied with any determination or decision of the court on the appeal as being wrong in law may, with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated for the opinion of that court on a question of law only.
(2)     If the High Court refuses to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.
(3)     An appeal to the Court of Appeal must be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the court.
(4)     The decision of the Court of Appeal on any application for leave to appeal,…

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 McCafferty v Accident Compensation Corporation Ca140/03 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: [2003] NZCA 245
Decision Date: 16 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Bernadette Mary McCafferty against the Accident Compensation Corporation, arising from a decision declining her leave to appeal a previous ruling. The lower court had dismissed McCafferty's appeal from a review officer’s decision that denied her compensation for loss of earnings. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was by way of a case stated. During the hearing, the court examined its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, ultimately concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The court noted that the right to appeal, as provided under section 166 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998, only applied to decisions made by the High Court on the appeal, and not to refusals of special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court centered on the interpretation of sections 165 and 166 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal was applicable to a refusal by the High Court to grant special leave to appeal, as opposed to a decision made on the merits of the appeal. The court further considered the legislative history and relevant case law, which established that general rights of appeal did not extend to refusals of leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that section 166(1) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 only permits appeals against determinations or decisions of the High Court on the appeal, and not against refusals of special leave to appeal. This interpretation was supported by precedent, including Seamar Holdings Ltd v Kupe Group Ltd and Lane v Esdaile, which confirmed that the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against refusals of leave to appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established legal principles in determining the scope of appellate jurisdiction.

Orders