TR v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2023] NZHC 2991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-320

[2023] NZHC 2991

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(3) of the Act

BETWEEN

TR

Appellant

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

On the Papers:

Counsel:

Appellant in Person

F L Becroft for Respondent

Judgment:

26 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application for special leave to bring appeal]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, TR, seeks special leave to appeal a decision of Judge McGuire upholding the Accident Compensation Corporation’s decision to decline her cover for an alleged personal injury caused by a work-related disease.1

[2] In 2014, TR was working as a doctor at Auckland Hospital. She tested positive for tuberculosis but on examination, the infection was considered latent. The

1 TR v ACC [2023] NZACC 27.

TR v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 2991 [26 October 2023]

Corporation determined, after receiving medical reports, that the applicant had not suffered a personal injury caused by workplace exposure.

[3] On TR’s appeal from the Corporation’s decision, the District Court considered the available evidence and concluded that it did not establish that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis and, even if she was, the infection was not active and therefore not a physical injury for the purposes of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

[4] In her application to this Court for special leave to appeal, TR seeks to challenge the District Court’s decision on two broad grounds:

(a)first, she argues that there has been systemic fraud and corruption in the Corporation’s handling of her claim, which has affected the outcome;

(b)second, she challenges the District Court’s finding that she did not suffer from a personal injury caused by workplace exposure.

[5] The applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing on 17 October 2023. I issued a minute later the same day recording that I would deal with the matter on the papers given the submissions and supporting materials TR had filed in support of her application.2

Legal principles

[6] A party to an appeal before the District Court from a decision of the Corporation who is dissatisfied with the decision as being wrong in law may, with the leave of the District Court, appeal to the High Court.3 If the District Court refuses to grant leave, the High Court may grant special leave to appeal.4

2      TR v ACC HC Wellington CIV-2023-485-182 and 320, 17 October 2023 (Minute of Isac J).
3      Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 162(1).
4      Section 162(3).

[7]The relevant principles are these:5

(a)The purpose of requiring leave for certain appeals is to ensure that scarce judicial time is allocated sensibly.

(b)Although it is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the Court, it will normally be necessary to show that there is an issue of principle at stake or that a considerable amount hinges on the decision, and that there is…

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 TR 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: [2023] NZHC 2991
Decision Date: 26 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, TR, sought special leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, which upheld the Accident Compensation Corporation’s decision to decline her claim for cover for a work-related disease. TR was employed as a doctor at Auckland Hospital in 2014, and she tested positive for tuberculosis. The Corporation determined that she had not suffered a personal injury caused by workplace exposure. TR appealed to the District Court, which dismissed her appeal. She now seeks to appeal to the High Court.

The primary legal issue was whether there were grounds to grant special leave to appeal the District Court’s decision. The legal principles were that leave should be granted where there is an issue of principle at stake or where a considerable amount hinges on the decision, and that there is a reasonable prospect of success. It is also necessary to show that leave is required in the interests of justice. Given that the District Court had already refused leave, there would need to be an extraordinary factor that had not been properly taken into account.

The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of law that would warrant granting leave. The evidence supported the District Court’s findings, which were not clearly untenable. The Court also found that the applicant had not shown that there was a causal link between her employment and the alleged injury. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and dismissed the application for special leave.

The Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal the District Court’s decision. The Court reserved its decision on costs.

Orders