Barnes v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 16 /99 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ROBERT HARRY BARNES of Auckland Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 79/98) 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 respondent has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of His Honour Judge M J Beattie issued on 20 July 1998 under number 158/98. The issue before the Court was whether the respondent had correctly exercised its discretion when it declined to make a payment by way of vocational rehabilitation for the retraining of the appellant as a helicopter pilot. The Court held that on the basis of the evidence before it the respondent had not properly exercised its discretion. The Court considered that the evidence demonstrated a failure by the respondent to properly consider all the issues required before making a decision. As the Court considered the discretionary nature of the respondent's decision precluded the Court from substituting its own decision it referred the matter back to the respondent to reconsider the decision, having regard to the matters of evidence to which the Court considered it should have regard. 2 The respondent has submitted that the decision is erroneous in point of law in that the Court erred in its interpretation of section 23 of the Act which is a discretionary section under which the respondent may make provision for payment for vocational rehabilitation of an injured person. It is submitted further that the Court erred in point of law in not having regard to the fact that it should not lightly interfere with a discretionary decision unless it could be shown that the respondent had exercised its discretion on a wrong principle or failed to take relevant considerations into account or made a decision no reasonable person could have reached In opposing the application the appellant has submitted that the decision of the Court did not involve matters of law. The appellant submitted that the decision of the Court merely identified matters of evidence which it considered the respondent had failed to give adequate consideration. Furthermore it was submitted that the decision of the Court did not interfere with the decision appealed against but merely directed the respondent to reconsider the decision in the light of the directions given by the Court. I do not consider that at this stage there is any issue of law for determination by the High Court. The decision on appeal set out various issues upon which the Court considered the respondent had given inadequate consideration before exercising its discretion as a result of which the Court directed the matter to be referred back to the respondent to enable it to reconsider its original decision. The application for leave to appeal to the High Court is declined. DATED at WELLINGTON this 28 day of January 1999 A W Middleton District Court Judge dca79-98.doc (nr)