9 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because Judge Walker's determination that the applicant failed to prove causation was a factual finding properly reached after weighing conflicting medical evidence; no question of law arose from that factual conclusion.
3 Apr 2017
The judge found the contested issues were factual, based on an assessment of competing medical evidence, and that no arguable question of law was established; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
9 Nov 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law was identified that could be argued bona fide and seriously: the challenges were to factual findings properly open on the evidence, prior determinations on weekly compensation are barred by res judicata, and the 10% WPI was supported by assessment and peer review such that no legal error was shown.
22 May 2015
Leave to appeal was granted because there is a question of law suitable for High Court determination—specifically whether ACC met the s117 'not satisfied' statutory test given conflicting medical evidence and uncertainty—and because it is in the interests of justice given the substantial consequences for the appellant and a reasonable prospect of success.
21 Oct 2014
Leave was granted because there is a bona fide and serious question of law as to whether Wildbore's approach applies to WPI assessments and whether the District Court erred in effectively foreclosing examination of the correctness of a WPI apportionment where the assessor discounted all impairment to non-ACC factors without substantive supporting detail, creating a real risk of injustice.
9 Dec 2011
Court held it lacked jurisdiction under s 163 because the High Court's refusal to grant leave was not a determination amenable to appeal under s 163; alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the proposed appeal raised only factual issues (misdiagnosis/entitlement) and no arguable question of law; therefore special leave was refused and costs awarded to respondent.
12 May 2011
No serious and arguable question of law was shown because the appellant sought to raise a new issue—mental injury as a consequence of covered physical injury—that was not before Judge Beattie, and Judge Beattie's factual findings that incapacity arose from chronic anxiety/adjustment disorder unrelated to hearing/tinnitus are supported by the medical evidence; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
19 Jun 2007
Leave to appeal was granted because the facts were undisputed and the case raises tenable legal questions about the interpretation and interplay of s 24(2) and s 24(4) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 and the effect of tax residency rules (s BB3 and s OE1) on whether overseas remuneration is treated as income derived in New Zealand; those issues are capable of bona fide and serious argument.
5 Oct 2006
Leave to appeal was declined because the contested points were either factual (compliance with s116(2)) or were not raised and determined at the original appeal (requirement of a s85 incapacity determination), and the appellant failed to show a tenable legal error in the District Court's decision.
26 Apr 2004
The District Court judge made factual findings on causation and standard of care based on the medical evidence and correctly applied the statutory test; the appellant did not demonstrate any error of law under s165, so leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.