Terry v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CIV-2016-485-379 [2017] NZHC 2352

BETWEEN

HAMAL TERRY

Appellant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing:	21 August 2017
Appearances:	T J McGurk for the appellant F L Becroft for the respondent
Judgment:	26 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

Table of Contents

District Court decision ...................................................................................................................... [7] Approach on appeal .......................................................................................................................... [9] The legislation .................................................................................................................................. [13] Questions of law on appeal ............................................................................................................. [14] Question one: whether ACC’s determination under s 105(2) of the Act on 12 November 2012,

that Mr Terry was no longer incapacitated, was flawed? ............................................................ [18]

Did Mr Terry have an entitlement to weekly compensation? ....................................................... [19] Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... [29] Was the process ACC adopted to assess Mr Terry’s incapacity flawed? ...................................... [32] Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ [34] ACC’s first decision ..................................................................................................................... [35] ACC’s second decision ................................................................................................................. [47] Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... [62] Section 50 claim and retrospectivity ............................................................................................ [63] Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... [69] Question two: Did the District Court fail to take into account relevant considerations in relation

to the s 105 assessment and therefore did it err in finding that it was open to ACC to find that

Mr Terry had capacity from 1 November 2008? .......................................................................... [70]

The District Court was wrong to hold there was no expert medical opinion that contradicted the

evidence of the respondent’s experts ............................................................................................ [72]

TERRY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 2352 [26 September 2017]

The District Court misunderstood s 87 when finding it was too late for Mr Terry to be provided

with vocational rehabilitation ....................................................................................................... [82] ACC’s failure to adhere to s 50 .................................................................................................... [88] Failure to take into account relevant considerations ..................................................................... [99] Result .............................................................................................................................................. [100]

[1]      Mr Terry was granted special leave to appeal to this Court on two questions of law relating to his capacity to engage in work, following a serious spinal injury on

28 April 2006 when he was in his final year of school.  Mr Terry received lump sum compensation in early 2009.  Five years after the accident, Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) accepted Mr Terry was entitled to weekly compensation from

15 December 2006  to  31 October 2008,  on  the basis  of a retrospective medical assessment.

[2]      As a result of that assessment, ACC determined that Mr Terry was entitled to weekly compensation up until 1 November 2008 but not after that date, because Mr Terry was assessed as having capacity to engage in employment.  ACC’s initial decision was quashed on review but was ultimately confirmed, after further reports were obtained, on 12 November 2012.  This was upheld by an ACC reviewer.  The reviewer’s decision was subsequently upheld by the District Court.1    The District

Court declined Mr Terry’s leave to appeal.2

[3]      On 9 February 2017, Mallon J granted special leave for Mr Terry to appeal to the High Court.3  The Judge granted special leave to appeal on two specific questions of law under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act):4

(a)      Was it open to ACC to determine Mr…