7 Nov 2017
SLIGHT v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 2716
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 2716
- Court
- High Court
Special leave to appeal was refused because no question of law of sufficient import was disclosed. The alleged failures of the appellant's advocate and the late medical evidence raised factual issues or advocacy judgments, not legal errors; the District Court and reviewer properly proceeded on the basis the Corporation acted under s117(3) and there was no legal error in the District Court's handling or conclusions; exercise of discretion to refuse leave was appropriate.