Saipe v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT AUCKLAND Decision No. 350/2004 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 152 of the Act BETWEEN BRIAN JOHN SAIPE (AI 537/03) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD at AUCKLAND on 14 October 2004 APPEARANCES Mr B J Saipe appeared in person. Miss F Becroft, Counsel for the Respondent. RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] This appeal purports to be an appeal from the decision of a Review Officer given on 19 September 2003. That decision determined that the Reviewer did not have jurisdiction to hear the issue which the appellant sought to have considered at review. That issue was a determination of the quantum of disbursements to which the appellant was entitled in accordance with a previous District Court decision of His Honour Judge Willy delivered on 11 July 2002. [2] The circumstances were that His Honour stated that the appellant was entitled to receive reimbursement from the respondent for his reasonable disbursements in relation to that appeal and it was the case that the parties could not agree on the quantum of same. Rather than have the matter referred back to the Court for determination under that Judgement, the appellant sought to “review” the letter from the respondent advising the amount of disbursements to which it was prepared to agree. 537.03 (pg) 2 [3] That review procedure was totally inappropriate and the Reviewer was quite correct to indicate that he had no jurisdiction to consider the question of reasonable disbursements as this was a matter within the purview of the District Court arising from the Judgement of His Honour Judge Willy. [4] I indicated to the parties that I would be prepared to deal with the matter on the basis of stepping into the shoes of His Honour Judge Willy and considering the question of the quantum of the appellant’s disbursement entitlement pursuant to the Judgement of His Honour. It is of course the case that His Honour Judge Willy has retired from the Office of District Court Judge so that the matter cannot be referred back to him for further consideration. [5] The precise wording of His Honour’s decision was that the appellant was “entitled to receive reimbursement from the respondent for his reasonable disbursements and I so order”. In furtherance of that, the appellant presented a Schedule of Disbursements to the respondent, which Schedule totalled $1,360.47. [6] As a starting point, I must indicate and do rule that the appellant is only entitled to reimbursement for his reasonable disbursements relating to the appeal heard by His Honour Judge Willy. The Schedule of Disbursements which the appellant presented contained claims for reimbursement for expenditure incurred in relation to the review hearing which preceded the appeal hearing before His Honour Judge Willy. Those disbursements are wholly within the province of that Reviewer and cannot be the subject of direction and determination in the District Court. Accordingly, the first eight items in the appellant’s Schedule must be disallowed on that basis. [7] I propose to now deal with the remainder of the disbursement claim, individually as follows, in the order that they appear on the Schedule tendered by the appellant. (i) Kms to deliver appeal application to District Court, Albany $6.82 The appellant elected to travel by car from his residence at Torbay to Albany to personally lodge the Notice of Appeal, he stating that he wanted to ensure that it was received and accepted within the statutory time-frame for the filing of appeals. The objection to this taken by the respondent was that the documents could have been filed by post. I consider this to be in the category of “de minimis” and the difference between the postage and the travel is of no significance. This sum is allowed. 537.03 (pg) 3 (ii) Photocopying of appeal application. .20 Allowed. (iii) Toll calls to Court Registrar, Wellington. 3.15 Allowed. (iv) Purchase of decisions from Mona Benner, Barrister. 51.64 This item is for the cost which the appellant incurred in obtaining copies of certain District Court decisions to which the respondent was referring in its submissions and to which the appellant considered he needed to be cognizant of for the purposes of the appeal. I understand that the cost is in fact the copying costs relating to the provision of those decisions. I find that these costs are reasonable; the appellant is a lay person and is entitled to be informed of the matters which are being raised by the respondent and he did not himself have access to any library or facilities to obtain copies. This charge is allowed. (v) Toll calls to Wellington Registrar. 1.15 Allowed. (vi) Annual leave to prepare appeal. 317.94 The appellant said that he took time off work to prepare for the appeal; there were two days involved and the number of hours each day for which he took annual leave, thereby losing income was 2 hours each day for a charge of $158.97 for each day. I do not allow this claim. A lay person can be expected to do this work in his own time and to allow this would be tantamount to allowing costs to the appellant. This claim is disallowed. (vii) Photocopying of appeal. 6.80 Allowed. (viii) Photocopying. 17.20 Allowed. (ix) Annual leave to attend appeal on 26 March 158.97 This is in a different category to the earlier claim for loss of income. The appellant is entitled to be reimbursed for the lost income suffered whilst attending the appeal. This claim is allowed. 537.03 (pg) 4 (x) Parking at Court. (Wilson’s Federal Street) 22.00 Allowed. (xi) Km to attend appeal. 26.04 Allowed. [8] The appellant is therefore entitled to be reimbursed in the sum of $611.91 for the reasonable disbursements which I have determined and set out above. [9] In addition to the foregoing sum I allow the appellant an additional $50 to cover the costs of attending the hearing of this appeal. I am making no other allowances for time spent or charges relating to this appeal as I have already indicated the appeal was misconceived in the first place. DATED at AUCKLAND this 12th day of November 2004 M J Beattie District Court Judge 537.03 (pg)