Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Accident Compensation Cases

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 12/03/13)

Judgment Text

M J Beattie Judge
The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of His Honour Judge D A Ongley, delivered on 16 July 2012. 
In that appeal the applicant was seeking a direction from the Court that the respondent be required to fund medical treatment for the applicant in Australia, he contending that there was no suitable medical specialist in New Zealand capable of providing the treatment for his sperm granuloma. 
It was the decision of His Honour Judge Ongley that section 128 of the The Accident Compensation Act 2001 stated that the Corporation was not empowered to fund treatment outside New Zealand, and on that basis His Honour dismissed the applicant's appeal. 
In his application for leave to appeal that decision, the applicant has requested that he be allowed to appeal Judge Ongley's decision on humanitarian grounds, he still asserting that he cannot get proper treatment for his condition in New Zealand. 
The Court has received submissions from Mr Ian Hunt, Counsel for the Respondent, and as was stated by him, no question of law is identified and that the statutory prohibition for what the applicant seeks is clear and beyond argument. He therefore submitted that leave to appeal should be declined. 
In this case there is no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument such as to warrant the granting of leave. The statutory provision in issue is quite clear and it does not contain any opportunity for discretionary decision, as its wording states that the Corporation must not pay for costs incurred outside New Zealand for any rehabilitation. 
On that basis there is simply no grounds for the granting of leave to appeal Judge Ongley's decision and therefore this application is refused. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents