Mohi-Rudolph v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Leave to appeal to the High Court is granted because the question whether s.88(2) precludes attendant care payments for services performed outside New Zealand, despite contract/payment occurring in New Zealand, is a question of law appropriate for determination by the High Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 318
- Parties
- Appellant: H Mohi-Rudolph; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 November 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the High Court granted.
- Legal Topics
- Attendant Care Benefits, Section 88(2) Interpretation, Extraterritorial Application of Benefits, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
H Mohi-Rudolph
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.88(2) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 prohibits payment of attendant care costs incurred outside New Zealand where the contract and payment are to be completed in New Zealand
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal to the High Court is granted because the question whether s.88(2) precludes attendant care payments for services performed outside New Zealand, despite contract/payment occurring in New Zealand, is a question of law appropriate for determination by the High Court.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the High Court granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the High Court granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT AUCKLAND Decision No. 318 /99 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN H MOHI-RUDOLPH Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 540/98) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT The respondent has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of His Honour Judge Jeremy Doogue issued on 16 July 1999 under Decision No. 198/99. The issue in that appeal was whether the appellant was entitled to attendant care costs whilst she was outside New Zealand for a period of seven days. The relevant statutory provision requiring to be considered was s.88(2) of the Act and the learned Judge ruled that whilst that provision prohibited payment for attendant care costs incurred outside New Zealand, that provision did not apply where the contract for that attendant care and the payment of same were to be completed within New Zealand 2 and that it was only the performance of the contract which was to be carried on outside New Zealand. The respondent contends that the learned Judge was wrong in law to so rule. I note that counsel for the appellant does not oppose the granting of leave in this case. I find that the issue raised by the respondent is a question of law and that this is an appropriate case for the granting of leave to the High Court and accordingly leave to appeal to the High Court is hereby granted. DATED at WELLINGTON this | | + day of November 1999 Deaths M J Beattie District Court Judge DCA540-98.doc(J9)