Allen v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The District Court held that the interpretive dispute over section 54(14) raised a question of law suitable for High Court determination and therefore granted leave to appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] NZACC 20
- Parties
- Appellant: Josephine Ivy Allen; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 April 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Pursuant to Section 91 of 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; costs reserved
- Legal Topics
- Independence Allowance, Section 54(14) Interpretation, Calculation of Disability Percentage, 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
Josephine Ivy Allen
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the independence allowance should be based on the simple difference of 0.25% or on a percentage reduction calculation of 19% by 18.75%
- 2 Whether Judge Imrie properly interpreted section 54(14) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992
- 3 Whether the issue involves a question of law warranting High Court review
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court held that the interpretive dispute over section 54(14) raised a question of law suitable for High Court determination and therefore granted leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the High Court granted; costs reserved
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the High Court granted
- Costs reserved
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Decision /10 . 20 / 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 JOSEPHINE IVY ALLEN of Auckland Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 135/95) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT The appellant has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of this Court delivered on 21 December 1995 under number 151/95. Appeals to the High Court can be made by any party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the District Court as being erroneous on a point of law. The issue before this Court was the question of whether the appellant was entitled to an independence allowance. In making his decision Judge Imrie had to take into account the fact that the appellant had received a previous lump sum under the Accident Compensation Act 1972 based on an 18.75% disability. Her disability under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 had been assessed at 19%. The issue which the Court had to decide was whether the independence allowance was based on the difference of .25% or whether there should be a percentage reduction calculation of the figure of 19%. Judge Imrie concluded that the proper method of calculation was to reduce 19% by 18.75% with the result being 15.4375%. The issue therefore is whether as a matter of law the Judge has properly interpreted section 54(14) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992. 2 I consider that this involves a question of law which requires to be considered by the High Court. Application for leave to appeal to the High Court is therefore granted and the question of costs is reserved. DATED at WELLINGTON this day of Apain 1996 A W Middleton District Court Judge dc135-95.doc (nr)