Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2024] NZHC 1424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-779

[2024] NZHC 1424

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

IN THE MATTER

of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Cort under s162 of the Act.

BETWEEN

WARREN SMITH

Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 20 May 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in Person

L Hawes-Gandar for Respondent

Judgment:

31 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31/05/2024 at 3pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
W Smith
Medico Law Limited

SMITH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2024] NZHC 1424 [31 May 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Smith is 75 years old. He has been in litigation with the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) for decades, as a result of a workplace injury in 1990 which led to the amputation of his left leg in 2002.

[2] Mr Smith applies for special leave to bring an appeal from a decision of Judge PR Spiller dated 26 June 2023,1 and from Judge CJ McGuire dated 8 November 2023.2

[3] The central issue is the jurisdiction of the courts to revisit previous decisions about liability to pay interest on arrears of weekly compensation payments.

[4] On 26 June 2023, Judge Spiller declined an appeal against a decision of a reviewer relating to interest on late payments of weekly compensation for the period 4 October 1991 to December 2004. Judge Spiller found that the reviewer was correct to dismiss the review on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and that the claim for interest on arrears of weekly compensation had been decided and repeatedly confirmed.3 Judge Spiller stated that issue estoppel applied and prevented re-litigation of the issue.

[5] On 8 November 2023, Judge McGuire declined leave to appeal and found that Mr Smith’s repeated attempts to relitigate the same issue amounted to an abuse of process.4

[6] Mr Smith raises two issues. First, that he has raised new previously unconsidered evidence which he says will make a material difference to the outcome and is an exception to the issue estoppel rule5. Secondly, that the Judges were in error to find a lack of jurisdiction to deal with evidential matters which had not previously been considered.

1      Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZACC 98 [Judge Spiller Decision].
2      Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZACC 181 [Judge McGuire Decision].
3      Judge Spiller Decision, above n 1, at [67].
4      Judge McGuire Decision, above n 2, at [27].
5 Mr Smith referred to both issue estoppel and judicial estoppel but from the context I take his submissions to refer to issue estoppel.

[7] The Corporation opposes Mr Smith’s application for special leave to appeal and says that Mr Smith has not raised any seriously arguable question of law; and the District Court’s conclusion regarding jurisdiction was not only open to it, but the only available outcome.

Background…

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 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 1424
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZHC 1424 involved Mr Smith, who had been in litigation with the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) since 1990 due to a workplace injury that resulted in the amputation of his left leg in 2002. Mr Smith sought special leave to appeal against decisions made by Judge Spiller and Judge McGuire, which declined his appeal against a reviewer's decision relating to interest on late payments of weekly compensation. The central issue was the jurisdiction of the courts to revisit previous decisions about liability to pay interest on arrears of weekly compensation payments.

Mr Smith argued that the previous decisions were in error because he had raised new previously unconsidered evidence which would make a material difference to the outcome, and that the issue estoppel rule did not apply. The Corporation opposed Mr Smith’s application, stating that he had not raised any seriously arguable question of law, and that the District Court's conclusion regarding jurisdiction was correct.

The court found that the previous decisions were correct and that issue estoppel applied, preventing Mr Smith from relitigating the issue. The court also found that Mr Smith's argument that the Corporation should have re-considered his entitlement in light of new information was incorrect because the relevant information had already been considered in previous proceedings. The court held that the liability to pay interest arose one month after the Corporation had all of the information necessary to calculate and make the payment, which was confirmed by Judge Beattie in 2007. The court concluded that there was no issue of law or principle that had any prospect of success and declined Mr Smith's application for special leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Smith’s application for review was invalid in terms of s 134 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and that special leave to bring an appeal from the decisions of Judge Spiller and Judge McGuire was declined. If the parties were unable to resolve the question of costs, memoranda were to be filed no later than 25 working days after the date of this judgment.

Orders