Reihana v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance,Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 370 199 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 TONI REIHANA DCA 37/99 Appellant 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 THE HIGH COUT The appellant has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of His Honour Judge A W Middleton issued on the 21" day of May 1999 under No. 129/99. The issue in that appeal was whether the Review Officer had been correct to decline jurisdiction to consider the appellant's claim for entitlement to assistance with University study. The appellant contended that that issue and decision arose out of a decision issued by the respondent on 1 September 1998. After reviewing the evidence of the various decisions that have been made from time to time pertaining to the appellant's vocational rehabilitation and entitlement to weekly 2 compensation, the Learned Judge concurred with the finding which had been made by the Review Officer that the decision not to fund further University study for the appellant was not a decision which had been made on 1 September 1998, although it had been the decision which had been made at an earlier time and which had been itself the subject of a separate review. Having made those findings of fact which do not seem to be in dispute by the appellant, the Learned Judge ruled that the Review Officer had been correct to find that he had no jurisdiction to consider that issue in the context of an application for review of the respondent's primary decision of 1 September 1998. In his submissions in support of this application for leave the appellant contends that the Learned Judge was wrong to rule that the Review Officer was correct to decline jurisdiction. He further contended that because no findings had been adduced by the District Court to settle whether the appellant's claim was being or could be made outside of the respondent's legislative responsibilities and obligations regime for providing rehabilitation plan, when all such evidence was litigated before the District Court, in the absence of such a finding is harsh and would of course necessitate rectification by a higher Tribunal/Court." This submission seems to suggest that the respondent ought to have looked beyond its legislative responsibilities and obligations, which of course as a matter of law the respondent is not entitled to do. The short answer is that I find that the appellant has not raised a tenable question of law which ought to be considered by the High Court on appeal and as such leave to appeal to the High Court is accordingly refused. DATED at WELLINGTON this 14 day of December 1999 M J Beattie District Court Judge 37.99Reihana.doc(gm)