ESTATE OF S C SIMPSON V ACC HC WN CIV-2005-485-717

ESTATE OF S C SIMPSON V ACC HC WN CIV-2005-485-717 27 March 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2005-485-717UNDER s 163 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 BETWEEN THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY CLAUDE SIMPSON Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 March 2006 Appearances: J M Miller for Appellant P A McBride for Respondent Judgment: 27 March 2006JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J[1] The Estate of Sydney Claude Simpson seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from my judgment of 3 November 2005, on the grounds that I erred in my interpretation of the meaning of s 121(2)(b) Accident Compensation Act 1972. The interpretation point at issue was whether that section encompassed compensation for historical estimates of the value of assistance gratuitously provided by a family member to a claimant. [2] Section 121(2)(b) of the 1972 Act came into force on 1 April 1974. It had an equivalent in the 1982 Act in the form of s 80(2)(b) of that Act, which section was repealed on 30 June 1992. Given the time span of 18 years the two sections have potentially applied to a number of claimants. Mr Miller made it clear that the appealI determined was one of a number of similar cases, the outcome of which are all affected by my decision. [3] Mr McBride advised that the Corporation would simply abide as to whether leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal should be granted. [4] I am satisfied, on application of the principles in Waller v Hider [1998] 1 NZLR 412, that the case does involve a seriously arguable question of law of sufficient public interest to justify review by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted. Counsel are to confer and to submit for my approval a suitable question or questions for the consideration of the Court of Appeal.Solicitors: John Miller Law, Wellington, for the Appellant Broadmore Barnett, Wellington, for Respondent