Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2016] NZHC 3148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001536 [2016] NZHC 3148

BETWEEN
WARREN SMITH

Applicant/Appellant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 17 November 2016

Appearances:

Applicant/Appellant in Person
Dane Tuiqereqere for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2016 at 10:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

SMITH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 3148 [20 December 2016]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Mr Warren Smith, is a 68-year old Hamilton man who, at the age of 42, injured his foot. At the time, Mr Smith was employed as an engine reconditioner.

[2] The injury never properly resolved. Over the following 12 years Mr Smith was in and out of hospital before his leg was amputated.

[3] Although Mr Smith was successful in securing some earnings-related compensation (“compensation”) from the Accident Compensation Corporation (“ACC”), for reasons set out more fully below, he experienced some difficulty in securing backdated compensation and, more relevantly for the purposes of the present application, backdated interest.

[4] The question of his entitlement to backdated interest was first considered and determined by the District Court on appeal in 2008.

[5] Subsequent to that decision Mr Smith has pressed for ACC to accept his entitlement to backdated interest from an earlier date. Successive refusals by ACC have led to reviews and appeals to the District Court. In those Mr Smith has been unsuccessful because all the decision makers, including the District Court, have decided the question was conclusively determined by the District Court in 2008 and there has not been any basis to revisit the decision.

[6] The District Court most recently considered the same issue in 2015 and determined it was bound by the principle of res judicata. Mr Smith was then unsuccessful in the District Court in his application for leave to appeal that decision to this Court. Mr Smith now seeks special leave on the basis he has fresh evidence indicating that ACC, through the actions of its servants, caused delays in him receiving compensation and thus his entitlement to backdated interest.

Factual and procedural background

[7] The factual and procedural background of this case is lengthy and complex. Mr Smith’s involvement with ACC goes back to early 1990 when he first injured his foot and, as a consequence, obtained compensation. For well over a decade Mr Smith has been involved in extensive disputes with ACC over his entitlement to compensation and backdated interest. He has enjoyed a reasonable measure of success both at review and on appeals to the District Court. Since 2006 he has
appealed to the District Court on at least seven occasions.1 The last of these was

Mr Smith’s unsuccessful application for leave to appeal to this Court.

[8] It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to traverse in fine detail the chronology of events since January 1990. However, some analysis of the facts and…

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: [2016] NZHC 3148
Decision Date: 20 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warren Smith sought to appeal a decision of the District Court which dismissed his application for leave to appeal the Court's decision that it was bound by the principle of res judicata. Mr Smith sought special leave to appeal on the basis that he had fresh evidence indicating that ACC, through the actions of its servants, caused delays in him receiving compensation and thus his entitlement to backdated interest. The Court considered the question of law as posed in Mr Smith's application against the principles governing applications for special leave as listed above. The Court concluded that the application for special leave should be dismissed as the question posed in Mr Smith's application introduced an entirely new contention. The proposed new evidence did not go to a question which the District Court determined and for this reason the Court was of the view that leave should not be granted. Furthermore, the evidence could easily have been obtained and used in Mr Smith's case, it was evidence which was in his knowledge and the Court was not satisfied the evidence was both credible and reliable. The Court also did not find that there were very special reasons engaged in this case which would justify the admission of this evidence. Finally, the Court was satisfied there was no reasonable prospect of success in the event special leave to appeal was granted.

Orders