Ramsay v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2007] NZCA 367

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA154/06
[2007] NZCA 367
BETWEENPETER ANNAN RAMSAY

Appellant

ANDACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing:8 August 2007

Court:Glazebrook, Chambers and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:A C Beck for Appellant

C J Hlavac for Respondent

Judgment:28 August 2007 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
BCosts of $3,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Glazebrook J)
Table of Contents
Para No

Introduction  [1]
Do we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal?  [7]
Is this appeal an abuse of process?  [10]
Was John Hansen J wrong not to recall his decision?  [12]
Result and costs  [22]
Introduction
[1]       In January 1989, Mr Ramsay injured his back while working as a plumber. He received weekly compensation for his injury, as well as treatment and rehabilitation. In January 1999, he was selected for a work capacity assessment. An occupational assessment was performed, followed by a medical assessment by Dr Talwar. The Corporation then advised Mr Ramsay that he had been found to have capacity for work and that weekly compensation would cease three months from 3 February 2000.
[2]       Mr Ramsay obtained a medical report from Mr Hodgson, an orthopaedic surgeon of Dunedin, challenging Dr Talwar’s opinion. Following an unsuccessful review application, Mr Ramsay lodged an appeal with the District Court. The District Court issued an interim judgment dated 6 March 2001, giving Mr Ramsay an opportunity to obtain a further medical report from a suitably qualified person – Ramsay v Accident Rehabilitation & Compensation Insurance Corporation DC DUN 46/2001 AI 425/00. Mr Ramsay did not agree with this course and issued judicial review proceedings. These proceedings were resolved by a consent order referring the matter back to the District Court to make a decision based on the evidence heard at the appeal, including that of Dr Talwar and Mr Hodgson. The District Court issued a final decision on 24 October 2001, dismissing Mr Ramsay’s appeal – Ramsay v Accident Rehabilitation & Compensation Insurance Corporation DC DUN 298/2001 AI 425/2000.
[3]       Mr Ramsay applied to the District Court for leave to appeal to the High Court. That was declined on 8 May 2002 – Ramsay v Accident Compensation Corporation DC WN 122/2002 AI 425/00. An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed by John Hansen J on 12 December 2002 – Ramsay v Accident Compensation Corporation [2004] NZAR 1. At the leave hearing John Hansen J, with consent of both counsel, had heard argument both in respect of the application for special leave and on the substantive appeal. The main reason that special leave was declined was because of the High Court’s view that any substantive appeal would have been dismissed.
[4]       Mr Ramsay then made an application for judicial review of the original District Court decision of 24 October 2001. The High Court struck out the proceedings, holding that review was precluded by virtue of…

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 Ramsay 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: [2007] NZCA 367
Decision Date: 28 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ramsay v Accident Compensation Corporation, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeal of Mr. Ramsay against the decision of the High Court, which had declined to grant special leave to appeal. Mr. Ramsay, who had suffered a back injury while working as a plumber, was seeking compensation from the Accident Compensation Corporation. After various appeals and proceedings, the High Court had declined to grant special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Ramsay subsequently sought to recall the High Court's decision, arguing that the High Court had erred in its judgment. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether they had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, whether the appeal constituted an abuse of process, and whether the High Court had erred in declining to recall its decision. The Court of Appeal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the statute governing the matter did not provide for an appeal against the refusal of special leave to appeal. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, it found that the appeal constituted an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to circumvent the finality of the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court had not erred in declining to recall its decision, as there was no evidence of the High Court acting on a wrong principle or failing to take into account relevant matters. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Orders