NAVIN CHANDRA AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION - [2024] NZHC 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1629

[2024] NZHC 3002

BETWEEN
NAVIN CHANDRA

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 26 September 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in person

F L Becroft for Respondent

Judgment:

15 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON- SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15/10/2024 at 3.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Medico Law, Auckland Copy to Applicant.

CHANDRA v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2024] NZHC 3002 [15 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Mr Chandra, suffers from a nerve injury in his right hand and arm. In April 2021, he sought cover from the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) on the basis the injury was a consequential treatment injury. Cover was declined. That decision was upheld on review.

[2] On 25 January 2024, Judge DL Henare dismissed Mr Chandra’s appeal.1 Mr Chandra sought leave to appeal the decision of Judge Henare.2 On 16 May 2024, Judge PR Spiller declined leave to appeal Judge Henare’s decision.3 On 12 June 2024, Mr Chandra filed a notice of appeal in this Court. The notice of appeal was not an application for special leave — which is required to bring an appeal in this Court. Even if the application is treated as an application for special leave, it was filed six days out of time.

[3] The first issue is whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant an extension of time permitting the late filing of an appeal. If such jurisdiction exists, only then can the Court consider an application for special leave.

[4] Mr Chandra urged me to consider the merits of the appeal regardless of the issue of jurisdiction and considered that the discussion at the hearing about jurisdiction indicated an unwillingness to consider the merits of his appeal. Unfortunately, Mr Chandra misunderstands the legal position. I am unable to consider the merits of Mr Chandra’s case in this decision unless there is jurisdiction to accept the notice of appeal out of time. Both an extension of time and special leave to appeal would be required.

Background

[5]The following is a short summary of the relevant factual background.

1      Chandra v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 012 [Appeal Decision].
2      As required by s 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
3      Chandra v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 082 [Leave Decision].

[6] On 25 March 2019, Mr Chandra suffered a fracture to his fifth metacarpal bone (the little finger on his right hand) after he tripped and fell landing on his right hand and left shoulder. Mr Chandra had been using crutches to walk at the time of the accident as he was suffering from a chronic regional pain syndrome — the result of an earlier injury. Mr Chandra received cover for the injury to his fifth metacarpal bone.

[7] During February 2020, a plate with five screws was surgically inserted into Mr Chandra’s fifth metacarpal…

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 NAVIN CHANDRA AND 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: [2024] NZHC 3002
Decision Date: 15 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Chandra, sought cover from the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) for a nerve injury in his right hand and arm, which he claimed was a consequential treatment injury. The Corporation declined cover, a decision which was upheld on review. Mr Chandra appealed this decision to the District Court, but the appeal was dismissed. He then sought leave to appeal to the High Court but this was declined. Mr Chandra subsequently filed a notice of appeal in the High Court, but this was six days out of time. The primary issue before the court was whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant an extension of time permitting the late filing of an appeal. The court held that the statutory time limit in s 162(4) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 is absolute and cannot be extended. The court declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing the appeal and dismissed Mr Chandra’s application. The court found that the statutory time limit was clear and mandatory and that there was no jurisdiction to extend it, even in circumstances where there was a delay or the fault of the Corporation in providing incorrect advice. The court also noted that Mr Chandra had already had the merits of his case considered by the District Court and that this Court had no jurisdiction to consider a further application for special leave filed out of time.

Orders