Hill v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 64/2006 UNDER The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to appeal to the High Court pursuant to Section 162 of the Act BETWEEN PERCY ROCCO HILL Intended Appellant (Appeal No. AI 191/04) AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Intended Respondent DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT Introduction 1. By an email sent to the Registrar, the intended appellant, Mr Hill, stated: “I Percy Rocco Hill appeal to the High Court. Regards, Percy Rocco Hill. Case No AI 191/04” 2. The Registrar has correctly treated the email as an application for leave to appeal the reserved judgment of His Honour Judge J Cadenhead. That judgment records that it was delivered on 30 March 2004. In fact, this is incorrect; and it is clear that the judgment was delivered on 30 March 2005. 2 Delay 3. Section 162(2) Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 is mandatory. It states that leave to appeal to the High Court “must be sought under Part 5 of the District Courts Act 1947 and within 21 days after the District Court’s decision”. 4. In this case, the reserved judgment was delivered on 30 March 2005. The application for leave to appeal was emailed to the registry on 26 April 2005. 5. As the letter dated 2 May 2005 from the Registrar to Mr Hill stated “the application for leave to appeal was filed six days outside the statutory 21 day time limit”. 6. In Thomas (283/05) the District Court considered the equivalent provision under the Accident Insurance Act 1988. The wording of s 165(2) of the 1988 Act is identical to the wording of s 162(2) of the 2001 Act. The Court determined that the 21 days ran from the date that the decision was issued. The Court stated: “…that lateness [of the application for leave] is fatal and I do not have any discretion to enlarge the time. The 21 days prescribed under s 165(2) runs from the date of the District Court’s decision and not from the date the appellant received a copy of the decision”. 7. Because the notice of appeal was filed outside the statutory time limit prescribed by s 162(2) of the 2001 Act, this Court has no power to grant leave to appeal to the High Court. 3 Question of Law 8. Even if this Court did have the power to grant leave to appeal to the High Court pursuant to s 162(2) of the 2001 Act, nevertheless the application would still be declined. 9. Section 162 states that leave to appeal to the High Court can only be granted if the proposed appeal raises a serious and arguable question of law. Nothing in the principal submissions of Mr Hill dated 26 November 2005 raises such an issue. Furthermore, no such issue is raised in the submissions in reply dated 16 February 2006. 10. For this reason, also, the application for leave to appeal must be declined. Conclusion 11. The application for leave to appeal to the High Court is declined. Dated at Wellington this 20th day of March 2006 J D Hole District Court Judge