Tiemi Te Au v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 6 7 /98 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to appeal under section 97 of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 BETWEEN DEAN TIEMI TE AU DCA 178/97& 6/96 Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL This is an application on the papers for leave to appeal pursuant to section 97 of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 in relation to two separate decisions of this Court on the grounds that the same are erroneous in point of law. 2 The first decision, being decision No. 4/97 (Appeal No. DCA 6/96), was a decision given on the 23 January 1997 in which the appellant was successful. The tenor of the Learned Judge's decision in that matter was that the Review Officer's purported review of the Corporation's decision of the 11th of September 1995 was outside the scope of his jurisdiction. It had been the appellant's contention that that particular decision was not one that he had sought to review. The consequence of that decision was that the appellant's position was unaltered. In the circumstances, there does not appear to be any basis for this appellant to now seek to appeal that decision and certainly no question of law has been raised as being in issue in the notice of appeal. Accordingly leave to appeal that decision is refused. The second decision is 244/97 as it relates to claims under the 1992 Act. Again the appellant has not alleged any error of law in the Learned Judge's decision. That part of the decision which deals with the appellant's entitlements under 1992 Act were considered in the light of the provisions of that Act which were applicable and on the findings of fact made by the Learned Judge he found that the appellant had not satisfied the requirements of the Act to obtain those entitlements. No question of law arises in respect of those matters. There cannot be an issue as to whether or not the 1982 Act or the 1992 Act applies as the claims for entitlements were made in respect of the appellant's injury which he sustained in September 1992 and thus only the 1992 Act can apply. 3 Accordingly as the appellant cannot establish any ground for appeal to the High Court as required in section 97(1) of the 1992 Act, leave to appeal that decision is also refused. DATED at WELLINGTON this 9day of April 1998 M J Beattie District Court Judge Te Au.doc(gm)