Carnahan v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
No costs were ordered because the appellant was legally aided with a $50 contribution under s37, section 86(2) limits costs liability absent exceptional circumstances, the appeal had merit and failed only on an evidential point, there were no exceptional circumstances and enforcement of any larger order was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] NZACC 108
- Parties
- Appellant: Brenda Carnahan; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 May 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Post Decision Costs Hearing
- Outcome
- No order for costs against the appellant; no order for costs against the respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Under Section 91, Costs in Civil Proceedings, Legal Services Act Contributions, Causation Under Section 7(1)(a)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brenda Carnahan
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Post Decision Costs Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order for costs should be made against a legally aided appellant
- 2 Effect of Legal Services Act 1991 s86(2) and s37 on costs liability
- 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to exceed the legal aid contribution limit
Ratio Decidendi
No costs were ordered because the appellant was legally aided with a $50 contribution under s37, section 86(2) limits costs liability absent exceptional circumstances, the appeal had merit and failed only on an evidential point, there were no exceptional circumstances and enforcement of any larger order was unlikely; accordingly no order for costs against appellant or respondent was made.
Court Disposition
No order for costs against the appellant; no order for costs against the respondent.
Orders
- No order for costs against the appellant.
- No order for costs against the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DUNEDIN Decision No. IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN BRENDA CARNAHAN DCA 241/97 Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE MI BEATTIE AS TO COSTS This appeal came on for hearing before me on the 5th day of December 1997 and a decision was delivered on 16 February 1998. In that decision I ruled that whilst it must be accepted that the appellant had suffered the injury complained of namely, wrist and hand strain, I found that the evidence was insufficient to establish on balance that that injury had been suffered by a gradual process and that the provisions of section 7(1)(a) 2 of the Act had not been established to the requisite standard. I therefore, dismissed the appeal. At the hearing counsel for the employer, Mckinlay Footwear Ltd, sought costs in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful but the question of costs was not addressed in my decision of 16 February 1998. Counsel for the appellant advises that Mrs Carnahan was legally aided for the purposes of this appeal and as such, in addition to the complete discretion which the District Court has on matters of costs, there are the provisions of sections 86 and 87 of the Legal Services Act 1991 to be considered. 86. Liability of aided person for costs --- (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, where any person receives civil legal aid in respect of any proceedings, that person's liability by virtue of an order for costs made against that person with respect to the proceedings shall not exceed the amount (if any) that is a reasonable one for that person to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including the means of all the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute. (2 ) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, except in exceptional circumstances, the amount that a person to whom that subsection applies shall be liable to pay under any such order for costs shall not exceed the amount of the contribution which that person is required to make to the Board under section 37 of this Act. I am advised by Mrs Carnahan's solicitors that Mrs Carnahan was required to make only the minimum contribution of $50.00 under section 37 of the Act 3 and therefore prima facie she has no liability to pay under any order for costs that might be made. Having regard to the circumstances of this appeal and of the fact that the appeal did have merit and it was only on one evidential point that caused the appeal to fail, it not being contested that the appellant did suffer from a real and significant injury, I find that it would not be appropriate in those circumstances to award any costs. There are no exceptional circumstances. There is no suggestion that the employer is in a financially disadvantaged situation and furthermore any such order would not be able to be enforced. Accordingly, I make no order for costs against the appellant. Certainly it is not a case for an order of costs against the respondent as the respondent's position in this appeal was the same as that of the employer and the Corporation was in the circumstances a successful party. DATED at WELLINGTON this 22 day of May 1998 MJ Beattie District Court Judge DCA 241.doc(gm)