Wilson v Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children
[2025] NZHC 3278
•30 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2025-485-724
[2025] NZHC 3278
BETWEEN ELIZABETH REBECCA WILSON
Plaintiff
AND
ORANGA TAMARIKI—MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN
First Defendant
AND
THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Second Defendant
AND
ASB CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Third Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
Plaintiff in Person
Judgment:
30 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF ISAC J
Introduction
[1] Ms Elizabeth Wilson seeks review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar refusing to accept for filing her application for special leave to appeal under s 162(4) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The application was not accepted for filing because it was received outside the statutory time frame provided for such applications. This judgment determines Ms Wilson’s application for review.
WILSON v ORANGA TAMARIKI [2025] NZHC 3278 [30 October 2025]
Background and the Registrar’s decision under review
[2] Ms Wilson originally sought to bring an appeal in the District Court against a decision of the Accident Compensation Corporation declining to reassess her whole person impairment as it had been assessed eight months earlier.1
[3] As Ms Wilson’s appeal was brought outside the required 28-day timeframe, she was required to first obtain leave of the District Court. Her application for leave was dismissed by Judge Spiller in a decision of 11 July 2022.2 The Judge declined the application because, among other reasons, the proposed appeal was entirely moot:
[24] It is not clear to this Court why Ms Wilson's proposed· appeal is significant to her. The Corporation's decision of 26 May 2021 declined to reassess Ms Wilson's whole person impairment at that stage. This decision was the subject of the ensuing review proceeding. The decision was clearly superseded by the agreement recorded by the Reviewer on 15 November 2021. The Reviewer noted that the parties (Ms Wilson and the Corporation) agreed to dismiss the review by consent and that Ms Wilson qualified to have her impairment assessed again. On 13 June 2022, the Corporation confirmed that Ms Wilson’s whole person impairment assessment was underway, that Ms Wilson had provided the necessary forms, and that the Corporation would continue working with Ms Wilson on all matters. The subject-matter of Ms Wilson's proposed appeal is therefore moot, and this Court does not have jurisdiction in this appeal over other matters.
[4] Ms Wilson then applied for leave to appeal Judge Spiller’s decision to the High Court. That application was declined by Judge Henare on 29 September 2022.3
[5] Almost two-years later, on 14 September 2025, Ms Wilson sought to bring an application for special leave in this Court to enable an appeal from Judge Henare’s leave decision.
[6]The Registrar wrote to Ms Wilson on 29 September 2025 noting:
…Section 162 the Accident Compensation Act states special leave to appeal to the High Court must be sought within 21 days of the District Court refusing leave to appeal. As it appears the District Court refused your Application for leave to appeal on 29 September 2022, your application to the High Court has been filed out of time. Please therefore provide legislative grounds for filing
1 Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation [2022] NZACC 191 at [1].
2 Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation [2022] NZACC 131.
3 Above n 1.
this Application out of time. If you are unable to provide such grounds, your application will be rejected for filing.
[7] Ms Wilson subsequently filed further material. On 7 October 2025 the Deputy Registrar declined to accept the notice of appeal for filing in the following decision:
We have received the documents provided in your emails sent between the 4th and the 6th of October 2025. Unfortunately, as these do not adequately state on what legislative grounds you are filing your Application to Appeal nearly 2 years out of time, we are rejecting your Application for filing. Section 162 of the Accident Compensation Act specifies that you had 21 days after the District Court’s refusal of your application seeking leave to appeal (dated 29 September 2022) to file an Application within the High Court.
If you wish to review my decision to reject your Application for filing, you may file an Interlocutory Application requesting a review within 5 working days of today’s date (7 October 2025) in accordance with section 2.11 of the High Court Rules.
[8] On 14 October 2025 Ms Wilson filed her application to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision.
Consideration
[9] Under r 2.11(1)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016 an affected party to an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge for a review of a registrar’s refusal to file a document tendered for filing. A judge may, on review, make any orders he or she thinks just.4
[10] A registrar’s refusal to accept a document for filing generally arises from a view taken that the document is not in a form required by the Rules.5 However, the power of a registrar is not limited to irregularities of this kind. It extends to an examination of the substance of a document to see, for example, whether it is plainly an abuse of process or whether the filing of the document is contrary to a direction of the Court.6 It also extends to an attempt to commence proceedings which as a matter of law can no longer be brought.
[11]Section 162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides:
4 High Court Rules 2016, r 2.11(2).
5 Jessica Gorman and others McGechan on Procedure (online ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR 2.11.02]
6 Muir v Hillvale Holdings Ltd [2017] NZHC 2082 at [17].
162 Appeal to High Court on question of law
(1)A party to an appeal who is dissatisfied with the decision of the 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 2016 and sections 126 to 130 of the District Court Act 2016, with all necessary modifications, apply to an appeal under this section as if it were an appeal under section 124 of that Act.
[12] I adopt Gwyn J's description of the effect of s 162 in Carey v Accident Compensation Corporation:7
(1) On its face, s 162(4) of the Act is mandatory in its terms and cannot be modified by resort to the rules of court. In a number of cases, including Armstrong v Accident Compensation Corporation and Crockett v Accident Compensation Corporation, this Court has concluded that the statutory time limit cannot be waived, even in special circumstances.
(2) Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Howard observed (in the context of a statutory timeframe in the Human Rights Act, expressed in the same terms as s 162(4) of the Act) that the courts cannot extend time unless the statute expressly provides that discretion.
(3) As some of the earlier cases note, r 20.3 of the Rules applies to applications for leave to appeal to the High Court. Rule 20.3(5) makes it plain that an extension to the time for filing an application cannot be given if the enactment under which the appeal is sought to be brought specifies a time limit. In effect, the power to extend in r 20.3 applies where the time limit is prescribed by the Rules themselves. If the statutory scheme has its own time limits, those limits prevail. That is the case here and s 162(4) of the Act applies.
[13] Ms Wilson’s application for special leave to appeal comes two years out of time. As noted at [11], this Court has no power to extend time under s 162(4).
7 Carey v Accident Compensation Corporation [2022] NZHC 2230 (footnotes omitted).
Result
[14] For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied the Deputy Registrar made no error in refusing to accept Ms Wilson’s application for filing. As a matter of law she is now unable to bring an application for special leave before the High Court. The attempt to circumvent the clear requirements Parliament has imposed in relation to such applications is an abuse of process. The proposed appeal is also moot for the reasons identified by Judge Spiller.
[15]The application for review is dismissed.
Isac J
0