Harwood v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Leave to appeal was granted because the decision involved clear questions of law—specifically whether the injury was a motor vehicle injury or a work injury and whether a motor vehicle is a place of employment—warranting determination by the High Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] NZACC 19
- Parties
- Appellant: Alexandra Harwood; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 March 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the High Court granted; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Definition of Work Injury, Motor Vehicle Injury Vs Work Injury, Place of Employment, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alexandra Harwood
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant suffered a "work injury" within s.6 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992
- 2 Whether the injury was a motor vehicle injury instead of or in addition to a work injury
- 3 Whether a motor vehicle constitutes a "place of employment" under the Act
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the decision involved clear questions of law—specifically whether the injury was a motor vehicle injury or a work injury and whether a motor vehicle is a place of employment—warranting determination by the High Court.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the High Court granted; costs reserved.
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal to the High Court granted.
- Question of costs reserved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 19 /16 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to 46 / 74 0524 section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ALEXANDRA HARWOOD of Auckland Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 158/94) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT The Auckland City Council, as the employer of the appellant Harwood, has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of Judge J Lovell-Smith issued on 7 June 1995 under No. 64/95. The issue was whether the appellant Harwood had suffered a "work injury" in terms of s.6 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992. The brief facts were that the appellant was employed by the Auckland City Council as an Environment Health Officer. She was injured in a motor vehicle accident while on her way to investigate a complaint in the course of her duties as an Environment Health officer. The issue before the Court was whether this constituted a work injury. The Auckland City Council as her employer, was a party to the proceedings and now seeks leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of this Court. The Auckland City Council in its application for leave raises as a question of law whether the decision that the injury suffered by the appellant Harwood was not a motor vehicle injury either instead of or in addition to a work injury. The 2 Auckland City Council raises a further ground of appeal that a motor vehicle is not a "place of employment" within the meaning of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act. I consider that while the respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal there are clearly issues of law involved in the decision which entitles the Auckland city Council to appeal to the High Court. Application for leave to appeal to the High Court is therefore granted and the question of costs is reserved. DATED at WELLINGTON this 25day of MARCH 1996 A W Middleton District Court Judge de158-94.doc(rd)