Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2015] NZHC 3252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1721

CIV-2015-404-1720 [2015] NZHC 3252

UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for special leave to

appeal to the High Court pursuant to s 162 of the Act

BETWEEN

ALAN THOMAS Applicant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2015

Appearances:

Applicant in person
D Tuiqereqere for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 December 2015 at 3:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors:
Mr A Thomas, Auckland
Mr D Tuiqereqere, Medico Law Ltd, Grey Lynn, Auckland

THOMAS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 3252 [16 December 2015]

[1] Mr Thomas has applied under s 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) for special leave to appeal against a decision of Judge Roderick Joyce QC in the District Court dismissing appeals by Mr Thomas against two review decisions.1

[2] One of the review decisions dismissed a claim by Mr Thomas that he was entitled to be reimbursed $45 for taxi fares in travelling to and from hospital for wrist surgery that occurred in 2012. The other review decision concerned a claim by Mr Thomas that the Corporation should pay for home help said to be required following the surgery.

Section 162 of the Act

[3] Section 162 provides:

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 grant special leave to appeal.

(4) The special leave of the High Court must be sought within 21 days after the District Court refused leave.

(5) The High Court Rules and sections 74 to 78 of the District Courts Act 1947, with all necessary modifications, apply to an appeal under this section as if it were an appeal under section 72 of that Act.

[4] As required by s 162, Mr Thomas first sought leave of the District Court. This was declined.2 Judge G M Harrison provided a concise summary of the background and noted some of the principal reasons for the substantive decision of Judge Joyce on the appeal. He then explained his reasons for dismissing the leave
application as follows:

1 Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZACC 36. The review decisions were
ACR 41/13 and ACR 42/13, both dated 20 December 2012.
2 Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 192.

[10] In Northland Cooperative Dairy Co Limited v Rapana [1999] 1
ERNZ 361,363 the Court of Appeal held that care must be taken to avoid allowing issues of fact to be dressed up as questions…

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 Thomas 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 3252
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Alan Thomas sought special leave to appeal to the High Court against two review decisions made by the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) in 2012. The review decisions concerned Mr Thomas' claims for reimbursement for taxi fares in relation to hospital visits and compensation for home help following wrist surgery in 2012. The District Court dismissed Mr Thomas' appeals against the review decisions. The High Court was required to determine whether Mr Thomas' application for special leave should be granted. The High Court found that Mr Thomas' application did not raise any material questions of law. The claims for reimbursement for taxi fares and home help had not been determined by the Corporation as Mr Thomas had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. The Court noted that Mr Thomas' claims were based on factual assertions rather than legal issues, and that the Corporation had not dismissed any properly made claims. The High Court exercised its discretion not to grant Mr Thomas' application for special leave. The Court ordered that if the Corporation sought costs, it was entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements. The Court also noted that Mr Thomas' failure to proceed with a separate application for special leave resulted in a waste of the Court's resources, but it was not appropriate to dismiss that application on the basis of the failure to proceed with it.

Orders