Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Accident Compensation Cases

Perkins v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 10/09/08)

Judgment Text

Judge M J Beattie
The appellant has lodged an appeal relating to 24 review decisions being Review Numbers 51368 to 51391 inclusive. 
The decision that was made in each of those 24 review applications was that the application for review was withdrawn at the request of the appellant's then counsel, Mr John Miller, Barrister. That request was made in November 2005 and related to 24 out of 35 outstanding reviews which the appellant had in being at that time. The 11 remaining reviews went to hearing and were determined on 16 January 2006. 
It is therefore the case that the appellant has appealed to this Court from the decision withdrawing those reviews. 
It is the case that no grounds or basis for seeking that those reviews be reinstated has been given, nor, in the circumstances could the Court consider any ground being applicable. 
The review procedure is a creature of statute and there is no provision in the Act which would allow for reinstatement of a review after it had been withdrawn in proper circumstances and where it could not be shown that the withdrawal was somehow done in error. 
Section 141(1)(a) specifically provides for an applicant to withdraw a review, thus withdrawal is contemplated as being a proper procedure. However, there is no provision which would allow for consideration of reinstatement, particularly as there is a time limit for the lodging of reviews. 
Whilst it might be the case that a fresh application for review could be lodged within the statutory three month period, once that three month period has elapsed then there would be no basis whatsoever to reconsider the substance of the application. 
The District Court has already ruled as a matter of law that there is no jurisdiction under the Act for the Court to grant a re-hearing of an appeal, that decision being confirmed by the High Court by the decision of Justice Cooper in Khan (Auckland Registry, CIV 2007-485-001632)
A claim for reinstatement in the circumstances that this appellant seeks is effectively a claim seeking a re-hearing of the review, and both for the reason that there is no jurisdiction and secondly, that the application could not be considered a second application because it is out of time, leads to the inevitable conclusion that no such reinstatement can be had. 
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents