Smith v Accident Compensation Commission - [2014] NZHC 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2012-412-000703 [2014] NZHC 296

BETWEEN TREVOR JOHN SMITH Appellant

ANDACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2014

Appearances: Appellant Appeared in Person
A J Douglass for Respondent

Judgment: 26 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The applicant in this proceeding (Mr Smith) has had cover with the Accident Compensation scheme for an injury incurred on 9 April 1981. He alleges that there was a second accident causing injury on 24 November 2004. This has been the subject of a number of earlier judgments some of which I will set out below.

[2] This particular hearing concerned a procedural argument as to whether or not there was a valid application for leave to appeal a decision of Judge P F Barber in the District Court. This District Court decision in turn involved a decision on an appeal against an ACC reviewer’s decision against Mr Smith within the terms of s 162(4)
Accident Compensation Act 2001.

SMITH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION [2014] NZHC 296 [26 February 2014]

Background

[3] As I understand the position, Mr Smith has brought many cases against ACC, Reviewers and others since his injury in 1981 and the subsequent incident he alleges occurred in November 2004.

[4] It appears that Mr Smith initially received further ACC funding for his 2004

“injury”, but this was later revoked.

[5] The proposed appeal is against the decision of Judge Barber dated 8 February

2012 which concerned the question: was ACC correct on 7 January 2011 to decline Mr Smith’s claim for weekly compensation from 24 November 2004? It appears this was said to relate to an “accident” to Mr Smith on 24 November 2004 when he pulled on a petrol hose. ACC declined compensation because they did not consider the appellant an earner as at 24 November 2004.

[6] And, in the District Court, Judge Barber effectively found again that the appellant was not an earner as at 24 November 2004, he being of the opinion that the appellant had conceded this. Further, this decision it seems was based on ACC's view that the condition Mr Smith had presented with on 24 November 2004 was not the result of any injury for which he had cover, but, rather, as a result of a deterioration of Mr Smith’s symptoms caused by age related degenerative disc disease. Judge Barber therefore dismissed Mr Smith’s appeal.

Is there jurisdiction to hear this appeal?

[7] The key statutory provision here is s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001 which provides as follows:

162 Appeal to High Court on question of law

(1) A party to an appeal who is dissatisfied with the decision of a 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 within 21 days after the District Court's decision.

(3) If the District Court refuses to grant leave, the High Court may…

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 Smith v Accident Compensation Commission 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 296
Decision Date: 26 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Smith v Accident Compensation Commission involved Trevor John Smith, an appellant, and the Accident Compensation Commission, the respondent. Smith's case centred on an injury he allegedly sustained on 24 November 2004, separate from the injury he had in 1981, which was covered by the Accident Compensation scheme. Smith had brought numerous cases against the ACC and others since his initial injury. This particular case focused on a procedural argument about whether there was a valid application for leave to appeal against a District Court decision regarding Smith's claim for weekly compensation for the 2004 incident. The central legal issue in this case was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear Smith's appeal, given the statutory requirements for filing an application for leave to appeal. The Court considered the provisions of s 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, which outlined the process for appealing to the High Court and the strict time limits for filing such an appeal. The Court found that Smith had not complied with the statutory requirements for filing his application for leave to appeal, despite being given numerous opportunities to do so over a period of 17 months. As a result, the Court dismissed Smith's application for leave to appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court also briefly addressed the merits of the appeal, stating that even if it had jurisdiction, the substance of the appeal had no merit. Smith's claim that he was an earner at the time of the alleged 2004 injury was not supported by the evidence before the Court. The Court agreed with the findings of the ACC, reviewers, and the District Court that Smith was not an earner at the time of the alleged injury. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal had no merit and dismissed Smith's application for leave to appeal. The costs of the case were reserved.

Orders