P & O Services (NZ) Limited v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 19/98 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 97 of the Act BETWEEN P & O SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 243/96) 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 issued on 7 August 1997 under No. 161/97. The issue before the Court was whether the respondent was entitled to attribute to the appellant the experience rated employer levies in respect of an activity it had acquired from the previous employer. The appellant has submitted that the issue before the Court involved the interpretation of Regulation (6) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance (Experience Rating) Regulations 1993. The appellant further submits that the decision appeared to be the only authority on the interpretation of Regulation (6) and that it is therefore appropriate that there be a determination on that issue from the High Court. The respondent submits that the decision of this court involves a decision on the facts of the particular case only and did not involve a question of law. A similar submission has been made on behalf of MidCentral Health Limited which had been the previous employer. 2 In his decision in this Court Judge Ongley found on the facts that the appellant had acquired the business activity of MidCentral Health Limited and having made that finding simply held that as a result the appellant became subject to the provisions of Regulation (6) of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance (Experience Rating) Regulations 1993. The decision did not consider the particular meaning or requirements of the Regulation, but having found as a fact that the appellant had acquired the business activity which it had purchased the regulation then applied to it. Accordingly I agree with the submission of the respondent that the appeal does not raise a question of law which it is necessary to submit to the High Court for decision. The application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court is declined. DATED at WELLINGTON this 9 th day of Febvucily 1998 A W Middleton District Court Judge dc243-96.doc(rd)