Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Muir v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 07/04/08)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE J. CADENHEAD [CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] 
Judge J. Cadenhead
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Judge Barber dated 10 August 2007. 
[2]
I had commenced looking at whether or not leave to appeal should be granted in this appeal. However, I note the appeal decision was delivered on 10 August 2007 and the application for leave to appeal, a letter treated as the application for leave, was received by the Registry on 5 September 2007: the time for filing expiring on 31 August 2007. Section 162(2) of the Act provides that leave of the District Court must be sought within 21 days of the District Court's decision. 
[3]
It, therefore, appears as if the application was filed outside the statutory framework. Only the High Court may grant an extension and the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal. There have been a series of decisions endorsing this interpretation of the Act. They are Wyman v ACC (CIV 2007- 485-45, High Court Wellington Registry, 23 May 2007, France J) the decision of MacPherson v ACC (CIV-2005-419-1347; Auckland Registry; Decision Courtney, J), and a decision of myself Strange v ACC (AI 618/02). 
[4]
I have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and this Court must decline leave to appeal, as I have no power to extend time. Application will have to be made for leave to the High Court. I, accordingly, do not grant leave to appeal to the High Court. There is no order as to costs. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents