ELLISTON V ACC CA CA209/05

ELLISTON V ACC CA CA209/05 9 December 2005IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA209/05BETWEEN GWENDA DORIS ELLISTON Applicant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 5 December 2005 Court: Glazebrook, Hammond and Chambers JJ Counsel: Applicant in person (no appearance) A D Barnett for Respondent Judgment: 9 December 2005JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The application for special leave is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. B No order for costs. REASONS(Given by Hammond J)Introduction[1] Ms Elliston applies for special leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of MacKenzie J dated 9 December 2004, in which he refused special leave to appealfrom a decision of the District Court under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. [2] Section 162 of that Act provides that appeals to the High Court require the leave of the District Court or the special leave of the High Court. [3] This Court has jurisdiction under s 163 of that statute with respect to "any determination or decision of [the High Court] on the appeal". [4] The wording of s 163 does not extend to a decision of the High Court refusing leave to appeal. This is because a decision of the High Court refusing leave is not a determination or decision "on the appeal". [5] Authority for this proposition is to be found in the decision of this Court inMcCafferty v Accident Compensation Corporation (2003) 16 PRNZ 843. In that case this Court held that s 166(1) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 does not confer a right of appeal against a decision of the High Court refusing special leave to appeal from the District Court. [6] It is to be observed that s 166 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 is in identical terms to s 163 of the 2001 Act, upon which Ms Elliston relies. [7] In McCafferty this Court further confirmed that a general right of appeal does not extend to a decision refusing leave to appeal. [8] In the result, there is no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the appeal which is sought to be advanced to us. The application for special leave is therefore dismissed. [9] Mr Barnett did not seek costs. There will be no order for costs.Solicitors: Broadmore Barnett, Wellington for Respondent