Revitt v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2014] NZHC 1394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-003992 [2014] NZHC 1394

IN THE MATTER
of an intended appeal pursuant to s 162 of

the Accident Compensation Act 2001

BETWEEN

GEOFFREY REVITT Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 18 June 2014

Counsel:

A C Beck for Applicant
H A Evans for Respondent

Judgment:

19 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] This judgment explains why I am declining Mr Revitt’s application for

special leave to appeal to the High Court.

[2] I have reached the conclusion that the question of law Mr Revitt wishes to argue in the High Court is not capable of being seriously argued because the relevant legislation is very clear and was correctly interpreted by the District Court.

Context

[3] Mr Revitt has sought special leave to appeal a decision of Judge Joyce QC delivered on 20 December 2012. Special leave is required to appeal to the High Court because on 6 March 2014 Judge Powell declined leave to appeal Judge Joyce’s
decision.

REVITT v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2014] NZHC 1394 [19 June 2014]

Background

[4] Mr Revitt was employed as a slaughterman by Alliance Group Ltd (Alliance). Alliance is an Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) accredited employer.1 An accredited employer acts as an agent of ACC pursuant to an accreditation agreement. Under s 184 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) an accreditation agreement may provide for the employer to be liable “… for some or all of the cost of providing entitlements in relation to work-related personal injuries suffered by the employer’s employees in that employer’s employment”.2 In return ACC charges the
employer reduced levies in relation to work-related personal injuries.3

[5] Mr Revitt worked for Alliance during the slaughter season, which commences in October/November and concludes in June/July the following year, for several years. In the off-season Mr Revitt remained an employee of Alliance but did not receive remuneration from Alliance. During some of his off-season Mr Revitt worked as a painter/decorator for another company.

[6] On 22 December 2008 Mr Revitt suffered a work-related personal injury to one of his knees while working as a slaughterman for Alliance. Alliance provided cover for the injuries and paid Mr Revitt his ACC entitlements. Mr Revitt had surgery for his injury in July 2009.

[7] On 17 September 2009 Alliance’s medical officer certified that Mr Revitt was fit to return to work as a slaughterman, but he was only partially fit for off-season work as a painter because he would have difficulty climbing ladders and scaffolding. Acting on this advice Alliance determined Mr Revitt was not incapacitated and that he was not eligible for ACC entitlements in relation to the off-season period.

Legislation

[8] Section 103(1), (2) and (3) of the Act provides:

103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, at time of personal injury, was earner or on unpaid parental leave

1      Accident Compensation Act 2001, ss 181-189.
2      Section 184(1)(a).
3      Section 184(1)(b).

(1) The Corporation must determine under…

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 Revitt 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: [2014] NZHC 1394
Decision Date: 19 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application for special leave to appeal a decision regarding the eligibility of Geoffrey Revitt for accident compensation benefits. Revitt, an employee of Alliance Group Ltd, a company accredited by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), sought compensation after suffering a work-related knee injury during his employment as a slaughterman. Despite being certified fit to return to his primary role, Revitt was deemed not incapacitated for other off-season work, leading to a denial of compensation benefits. Revitt applied for special leave to appeal the decision of the District Court, which had upheld the ACC's determination.

The court was required to determine whether the question of law Revitt intended to raise was capable of serious argument. This required the court to examine the relevant legislation, specifically section 103 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and assess whether the statutory interpretation made by the District Court was correct and conclusive. The court had to consider whether Revitt's proposed question of law could lead to a different outcome and if it was a matter that warranted further judicial review.

Collins J concluded that the District Court's interpretation of the relevant legislation was correct and that Revitt's proposed question of law was not capable of serious argument. The court found that the statutory requirement for incapacity assessment under section 103 of the Act was clear and unambiguous, focusing on the employment status at the time of the injury. Revitt's ability to perform other work at a later time was deemed irrelevant to the determination of his eligibility for compensation. Therefore, the court dismissed Revitt's application for special leave to appeal, reinforcing the District Court's decision.

Collins J's decision highlighted the importance of clear statutory language and the need for a consistent interpretation of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The court's ruling underscored that the assessment of incapacity under the Act must be based on the claimant's ability to perform the specific employment they held at the time of the injury, rather than their capacity to perform different work at a later time. The court's dismissal of Revitt's application for special leave to appeal affirmed the statutory framework and the need for adherence to legislative provisions in determining eligibility for accident compensation benefits.

Orders