Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Puru v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 30/05/07)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
On 19 August 2004 the Registry received an Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court on the applicant's behalf lodged by the applicant's Advocate, Mr M Darke. 
[2]
The application sought leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of His Honour Judge J Cadenhead, delivered on 28 July 2004. 
[3]
In that decision His Honour had dismissed the applicant's appeal and by doing so confirmed the review decision to the effect that there was no jurisdiction to hear the applicant's review/appeal as the application for same had been lodged some two years and nine months outside the three month period provided for in Section 136(2) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998, being the Act in force at the time the decision was made. 
[4]
The grounds for leave as set out in the applicant's Application for Leave contended, inter alia, that the Learned Judge was in error in finding that the provisions of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 pertaining to time limits applied rather than those of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 2001. 
[5]
Whilst that is a question of law, it is the case that I do not find it is a serious and bona fide question of law as this matter is well settled, as was noted by His Honour in his decision. The other two matters which are referred to in the Notice are questions of fact not giving rise to any question of law and therefore would not be amenable to any consideration by the High Court in any event. 
[6]
Whilst the applicant lodged his Application for Leave in August 2004, no further contact has been had by the Registry with his Advocate regarding the filing of submissions in support, despite several letters of request for same, between August 2004 and the last such request being sent on 19 March 2007. 
[7]
In this case there has been serious delay in the prosecuting of the application but that in any event I find that the application itself is not one which has merit as no bona fide and serious question of law can be or has been raised which would justify the granting of leave. 
[8]
Accordingly, the Application for Leave to appeal to the High Court is hereby declined. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents