Christchurch Electrical Limited v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The Court held that under s92 and Rule 45 it may award costs to an unqualified advocate authorised by a party; despite late filing, the submissions required preparation and filing, and therefore an award of costs was appropriate and fixed at $1,000.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] NZACC 47
- Parties
- Appellant: Christchurch Electrical Limited; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 July 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 Section 91 / District Court Decision on Costs
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the advocate for Mr Gillie against Christchurch Electrical Limited in the sum of $1,000.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Representation by Non Lawyers, Costs Entitlement, Withdrawal of Appeal, Late Filing of Submissions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christchurch Electrical Limited
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 Section 91 / District Court Decision on Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the District Court may award costs to an unqualified advocate authorised by a party under s92 of the Act and Rule 45
- 2 Whether an advocate who filed submissions late is nonetheless entitled to costs when the appeal is discontinued
- 3 Appropriate quantum of costs to award following discontinuance of the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that under s92 and Rule 45 it may award costs to an unqualified advocate authorised by a party; despite late filing, the submissions required preparation and filing, and therefore an award of costs was appropriate and fixed at $1,000.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the advocate for Mr Gillie against Christchurch Electrical Limited in the sum of $1,000.
Orders
- Christchurch Electrical Limited to pay $1,000 costs to Mr Gillie\'s advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 47 / 96 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN CHRISTCHURCH ELECTRICAL LIMITED of Christchurch Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 237/95) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION ON COSTS Christchurch Electrical Limited as the employer of Derek Bruce Gillie appealed against a decision of the review officer given on 31 August 1995 in which the review officer held that she had no jurisdiction to consider a review application which had been lodged out of time. The matter in issue was whether the respondent was correct in classifying an injury sustained by Mr Gillie as being a work injury. On 22 March 1996 the appellant's solicitor's lodged extensive submissions in support of its appeal. Mr Gillie's advocate lodged extensive submissions in reply When Mr Gillie's advocate was advised that the appellant had withdrawn its appeal he submitted an application for costs in the sum of $1,350. The advocate also submitted a copy of a letter dated 10 June 1996 from the appellant's solicitor to him indicating that in their opinion, as the advocate was neither a barrister nor solicitor the Court has no power to award costs. 2 Pursuant to s.92 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 an appellant in the District Court may be represented by any person authorised by the party to do so. Accordingly, the Court is entitled by Rule 45 of the District Courts Rules 1992 to exercise its general discretion to award costs to an unqualified advocate authorised by an appellant to act for him on the appeal. While the appellant discontinued the appeal because the respondent had then accepted that Mr Gillie's injury was no longer classified as a "work" injury I consider that notwithstanding the advocate was late in filing submissions they had to be prepared and filed Accordingly Mr Gillie's advocate is entitled to an award of costs against the appellant which I fix at $1,000. DATED at WELLINGTON this 1 0 day of July 1996 A W Middleton District Court Judge dc23795.doc(rd)