Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2015] NZHC 3168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2015-412-000059

CIV-2015-412-000102 [2015] NZHC 3168

BETWEEN
HAZEL SINCLAIR

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 17 November 2015

Appearances:

W A Forster for the Applicant
I G Hunt for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

General background

[1] In April 1997, Ms Sinclair, then aged 39 and employed by Dunedin City Council, suffered a fracture injury to her left wrist in the course of her employment at a library. She was granted weekly compensation from Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

[2] In March 1999, she was able to return to work part-time. In June 1999, she returned to full weekly compensation payments after submitting a medical certificate which showed her again as fully unfit to work.

[3] In April 2000, Ms Sinclair reported falling from a ladder at home and was granted weekly compensation in relation to that injury.

SINCLAIR v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 3168 [11 December 2015]

[4] Around 2006, ACC began investigating an allegation that Ms Sinclair had accepted full-time employment as an ambulance officer but failed to advise ACC of that development.

[5] Ms Sinclair’s advocate, Mr Forster, made enquiries and complaints in late

2007 and early 2008 relating to the investigation in these matters. Arising out of that correspondence, Ms Sinclair made complaints. These were the subject of an application for review and then ultimately an appeal to the District Court. Judge Barber upheld the decision made by the reviewer in a decision of 15 October 2009.1

[6] In April 2008, Ms Sinclair was charged with fraud against ACC in failing to disclose that she had accepted full-time employment as an ambulance officer. Around March 2010, Ms Sinclair pleaded guilty to charges relating to the non- disclosure of her full-time employment. ACC did not seek reparation.

[7] In February 2009, Ms Sinclair made an application for review contending that ACC had decided she was not entitled to weekly compensation as a result of the basis on which she was being prosecuted.

[8] In a decision of May 2009, the reviewer decided there had been no decision which was amenable to review.

[9] The reviewer’s decision of May 2009 was upheld on appeal by Judge Barber in the District Court in a decision of 6 December 2011.2

[10] Judge Beattie subsequently declined leave to appeal Judge Barber’s decision

of 6 December 2011.3

[11] Judge Barber’s decision was the subject of an application for special leave to
appeal before the High Court. Fogarty J declined special leave on the grounds that the issues in the case were moot, the investigation having been concluded with a plea

1 Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation DC Dunedin Decision No. 174/2009, 15 October
2009.

of guilty to the charges brought.4 Fogarty J also held that the case did not raise issues of general importance that needed to be addressed by the High Court.

[12] Separately, at some point between 2006 and 2008, ACC refused to pay for anti-depressant…

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 Sinclair 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: [2015] NZHC 3168
Decision Date: 11 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazel Sinclair sought special leave to appeal to the High Court a decision of Judge Powell in the District Court dismissing her application for leave to appeal a decision of the reviewer declining jurisdiction to hear a review of the decision of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to decline to investigate a complaint that it had not provided relevant information to a psychiatrist. Judge Nation held that the proposed appeal did not raise any issues of sufficient private importance to Ms Sinclair to outweigh the delay and cost of a further appeal. The original complaint, and any further investigation of it, had no utility in relation to her entitlements. There was no divergence of opinion amongst District Court judges as to whether a decision that a complaint was not a Code complaint was a decision as to jurisdiction which was amenable to appeal. Even if there was a divergence, the proposed appeal did not raise any issue of sufficient public importance and interest. The scheme of the Act was to limit the extent to which the Courts might be involved over ACC issues. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders