ACCforum: Elliston V Acc Ca 209 05 - ACCforum

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA209/05

BETWEEN
GWENDA DORIS ELLISTON
Applicant

AND
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent

Coram: Glazebrook J, Hammond J, Chambers J

Hearing: 5 December 2005

Counsel:
Applicant in person (no appearance)
A D Barnett for Respondent

Judgment 9 December 2005
date:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for special leave is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
B No order for costs.
REASONS
(Given by Hammond J)

Introduction
[1 ] Ms Eliiston applies for special leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of MacKenzie J dated 9 December 2004, in which he refused special leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001.

[2] Section 162 of that Act provides that appeals to the High Court require the leave of the District Court or the special leave of the High Court.

[3] This Court has jurisdiction under s 163 of that statute with respect to "any determination or decision of [the High Court] on the appeal".

[4] The wording of s 163 does not extend to a decision of the High Court refusing leave to appeal. This is because a decision of the High Court refusing leave is not a determination or decision ''on the appeal".

[5] Authority for this proposition is to be found in the decision of this Court in McCafferty v Accident Compensation Corporation (2003) 16 PRNZ 843. In that case this Court held that s 166(1) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 does not confer a right of appeal against a decision of the High Court refusing special leave to appeal from the District Court.

[6] It is to be observed that s 166 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 is in identical terms to s 163 of the 2001 Act, upon which Ms Eliiston relies.

[7] In McCafferty this Court further confirmed that a general right of appeal does not extend to a decision refusing leave to appeal.

[8] In the result, there is no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the appeal which is sought to be advanced to us. The application for special leave is therefore dismissed.

[9] Mr Barnett did not seek costs. There will be no order for costs.

Solicitors
Broadmore Barnett, Wellington for Respondent