Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 19/12/14)

Judgment Text

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L G POWELL 
Judge L G Powell
[1]
This is an application to reinstate 118 appeals brought by Mr Thomas. The appeals were struck out by operation of an “unless” order, when Mr Thomas failed to file and serve submissions in respect of his appeals by 29 August 2014 as he had been directed. 
Background 
[2]
The appeals which are sought to be reinstated were filed by Mr Thomas between 2005 and 2011. Of the 118 appeals 27 relate to substantive issues raised by Mr Thomas with the Corporation and which were declined at review, and involve issues relating to the provision of social rehabilitation, weekly compensation, cover in respect of Mr Thomas' left arm, individual rehabilitation plans and transport (“the substantive appeals”).1
| X |Footnote: 1
AI 097/06, 404/06, 407/06, 415/06, 371/08, 372/08, 373/08, 374/08, 377/08, 381/08, 386/08, 397/08, 398/08, 401/08, 403/08, 405/08, 414/08 and 415/08, AI 424/08, 189/09, 190/09, ACR 41/10, 42/10, 43/10, 660/10, 843/10, 5/11 
 
[3]
With regard to the remainder of the appeals, these involved appeals from decisions of reviewers where the reviewer had declined jurisdiction to hear the substantive issues raised by Mr Thomas (“the jurisdictional appeals”).2
| X |Footnote: 2
AI 299/05, 098/06, 099/06, 101/06, 405/06, 408/06, 109/06, 410/06, 412/06, 413/06 414/06, 294/08, 353/08, 354/08, 355/08, 356/08, 357/08, 358/08, 359/08, 360/08, 361/08, 362/08, 363/08, 364/08, 365/08, 366/08, 367/08, 368/08, 369/08, 370/08, 375/08, 376/08, 378/08, 379/08, 380/08, 382/08, 383/08, 384/08, 385/08, 387/08, 388/08, 389/08, 390/08, 391/08, 392/08, 393/08, 394/08, 395/08, 396/08, 399/08, 400/08, 402/08, 404/08, 406/08, 407/08, 408/08, 409/08, 410/08, 411/08, 412/08, 413/08 and 416/08, AI 417/08, 418/08, 419/08, 420/08, 421/08, 422/08, 423/08, 425/08, 426/08, 82/09, 185/09, 190/09, ACR 40/10, 43/10, 278/10, 654/10, 655/10, 656/10, 657/10, 658/10, 659/10, 661/10, 110/11, 111/11, 112/11, 113/11, 114/11, 115/11, 116/11, 194/11, and 373/11 
 
[4]
A number of both the substantive appeals and jurisdictional appeals were also filed late, between one month and six years out of time.3
| X |Footnote: 3
AI 405/06, 353,08, 354/08, 355/08, 356/08, 357/08, 358/08, 359/08, 360/08, 361/08, 362/08, 363/08, 364/08, 365/08, 366/08, 367/08, 368/08, 369/08, 370/08, 375/08, 376/08, 378/08, 379/08, 380/08, 382/08, 383/08, 384/08, 385/08, 387/08, 388/08, 389/08, 390/08, 391/08, 392/08, 393/08, 394/08, 395/08, 396/08, 399/08, 400/08, 402/08, 404/08, 406/08, 407/08, 408/08, 409/08, 410/08, 411/08, 412/08, 413/08 and 416/08, 404/06, 407/06, 415/06, 371/08, 372/08, 373/08, 374/08, 377/08, 381/08, 386/08, 397/08, 398/08, 401/08, 403/08, 405/08, 414/08, AI 417/08, 418/08, 419/08, 420/08, 421/08, 422/08, 423/08, 425/08, 426/08, ACR 40/10, 43/10 and 278/10. 
 
[5]
Although Mr Thomas has prosecuted a number of appeals in not only the District Court but also the High Court and Court of Appeal since the 118 appeals subject to this application began to be filed,4
| X |Footnote: 4
Including Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 89Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 186Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZACC 35Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZACC 36Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZHC 2296Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZHC 3206Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZHC 1073Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Rehabilitation Compensation Insurance Corporation DC Auckland DCA 129-98, 21 April 2010; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 91; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation DC Auckland AI 100-06, 10 September 2007
he has taken no steps whatsoever to advance any of the present appeals since they were filed5
| X |Footnote: 5
Noting that Mr Thomas' appeals were however put on hold by the Registry on 22 May 2012 pending the outcome of his then appeal to the High Court, which appeal was determined on 30 November 2012 
; nor has any attempt been made to provide grounds as to why the appeals filed out of time should be allowed to proceed. As a result, by the end of May 2014, these 118 appeals not only represented some 8.4% of the total number of appeals yet to be heard in the District Court Accident Compensation jurisdiction but more significantly constituted some 25% of the average age of unheard cases in the jurisdiction. 
[6]
As a result of the lack of progress the Registry directed that all 118 appeals be set down at one of three directions conferences convened for the express purpose of calling through Mr Thomas' appeals. In the event, due to the constructive engagement by both parties, only two directions conferences, which took place on 25 June 2014 and 4 July 2014 respectively, were required to call through all of the appeals. 
[7]
Following each of the conferences I issued two minutes setting out directions in respect of the substantive appeals and jurisdictional appeals respectively. With regard to all 118 appeals (both substantive and jurisdictional) the directions provided: 
“[3]
As all of the appeals listed at the head of this minute now date back a considerable period I direct that if Mr Thomas wishes to proceed with the appeals submissions in respect of each appeal, and in particular separate submissions in support of the application for leave to file the appeal out of time and in support of the appeal itself, are to be filed and served no later than 29 August 2014. 
[4]
In the event that submissions are filed by Mr Thomas as directed, submissions on behalf of the respondent are to be filed and served no later than 26 September 2014. 
[5]
If the submissions are not filed on behalf of Mr Thomas as directed in this Minute, in the absence of any further extension of time for filing granted by the Court, each of the appeals in respect of which submissions have not been filed, will, without any further notice to Mr Thomas or mention in Court, stand dismissed. ”
[8]
In addition, following the conference on 4 July 2014, I also issued a general minute relating to all the appeals which contained directions relating to the ultimate hearing of the appeals for which hearing time had been set aside in the District Court at Auckland in the week of 10 November 2014. 
[9]
In the event Mr Thomas failed to file and serve his submissions as directed and, as noted, the appeals were struck out by operation of the unless order. It transpired, and is not in dispute, that Mr Thomas had in fact prepared two sets of submissions relevant to the proceedings but did not arrange for these to be picked up by a courier from his home in Auckland for transport to the Accident Compensation District Court Registry in Wellington until 4.22 p.m. on 29 August 2014. There was accordingly no way that they could be filed and served on the due date, and Mr Thomas had not sought an extension to the time for filing. As it happened the courier company then inadvertently sent Mr Thomas's submission to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Corporation, being received by the Corporation on 2 September 2014. The submissions eventually found their way to the Accident Compensation District Court Registry on 3 September 2014. 
[10]
Mr Thomas was advised on 4 September 2014 that the appeals had been struck out and promptly applied for reinstatement. Of necessity however the timetable set in place following the conferences on 25 June 2014 and 4 July 2014 had to be put on hold until the issue of whether the appeals would be reinstated was determined, and as a result the proposed hearing in November 2014 had to be vacated. 
Legal Principles Applicable to Reinstatement of Appeals 
[11]
The District Court, as part of its inherent powers to prevent an abuse of process,6
| X |Footnote: 6
McMenamin v Attorney-General [1985] 2 NZLR 274 (CA)Has partially negative history or cases citing, but has not been reversed or overruled[Yellow]  
has jurisdiction to issue unless orders. The Court also has the jurisdiction, as a necessary corollary of that power, to reinstate proceedings which have been struck out for non-compliance with such orders either erroneously or for just cause.7
| X |Footnote: 7
Zhao v Wallace [2009] DCR 55Has Cases Citing which are not known to be negative[Green]  at [44]-[45]. 
 
[12]
The leading case on unless orders and their effect is the decision of SM v LFDB8
| X |Footnote: 8
[2014] NZCA 326
. In relation to the issue of whether a party should be relieved of the sanction for non compliance with an unless order, Stevens J, giving judgment for the Court of Appeal observed at [31]: 
“(d)
Justice may require that the party in default be relived of the consequences of the unless order where the Court is satisfied that the breach resulted from something for which that party should not be held responsible. The party should not assume that belated compliance will suffice. 
(e)
Where the unless order has been deliberately breached — that is, flouted — it is difficult to conceive of any situation where the interests of justice would require granting the flouter relief from the sanction imposed, notwithstanding belated compliance with the order. 
(f)
In deciding whether or not to excuse breach of an unless order the question for the Judge is: what does justice demand in the circumstances of this case? Consideration in answering that question include: 
(i)
the public interest in ensuring that justice is administered without unnecessary delays and costs. 
(ii)
The interests of the injured party, in particular in terms of delay and wasted cost. 
(iii)
Any injustice to the defaulting party, although that consideration is likely to carry much less weight in the circumstances than considerations (i) and (ii). ”
[13]
In the course of his judgment Stevens J noted that the Court had drawn the principles to be applied from relevant English cases notably the judgment of Ward LJ in Hytec Information Systems Limited v Coventry City Council.9
| X |Footnote: 9
[1997] 1 WLR 1666 (CA) 
I find that the judgment of Ward LJ to be particularly useful in providing further clarification of the approach to be taken in a case like the present where Mr Thomas seeks relief from failure to comply with the unless order. Specifically Ward LJ noted: 
“(5)
A sufficient exoneration will almost inevitably require that he satisfies the Court that something beyond his control has caused his failure to comply with the order. 
(6)
The judge exercises his judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to excuse. A discretion judicially exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case on its own merits depends on the circumstances of that case; at the core is service to justice. 
(7)
The interests of justice require that justice be shown to the injured party for the procedural inefficiencies caused by the twin scourges of delay and wasted costs. The public interest in the administration of justice to contain those two blights upon it also weighs very heavily. Any injustice to the defaulting party, though never to be ignored, comes a long way behind the other two. ”
The Position of the Parties 
[14]
In his memorandum in support of his application for reinstatement Mr Thomas raised the following matters: 
“•
Failure of ACC to surrender reviewers notes 
Registry's failure to maintain files 
Date of accepted delivery 
Inconvenience or harm 
Lack of legal support 
Nature of disabilities including brain damage 
Lateness of the proofreader 
Progressive attrition unjustly benefits respondent ”
[15]
Each of these matters was set out in some detail in writing and then further developed at the hearing before me. In summary Mr Thomas submitted: 
“46.
I submit that there exists a gross disproportion of consequence to such a minor failing should that failing [be] of my making. 
47.
It is submitted that given it is not normal, and may never have happened previously, for one and a half decades worth of ACC case management failure of gathering information and decision-making and/or cellist decision issues before the Court being dismissed on the basis of such a minor mistake. 
48.
It is further submitted that this accumulation of outstanding issues as a construct of delays created by the respondent themselves whereby the disproportion of risk to have all issues disposed of at once is a feature of insurance Corporation risk management that occurs throughout the world whereby the probability of a disabled person making such mistakes benefits the insurer. ”
[16]
In contrast Mr Tuiqereqere on behalf of the Corporation while opposing the reinstatement of the 27 substantive appeals indicated that while the “Corporation does not accept [Mr Thomas'] reasons for filing the written submissions late it takes a neutral position on [Mr Thomas'] application to reinstate the 91 jurisdictional appeals”
[17]
The short point relied on by Mr Tuiqereqere in respect of the substantive appeals was that the submissions ultimately filed by Mr Thomas do not include submissions on the substantive appeals. The appeals were “therefore properly dismissed and ought to remain so”
Discussion and Analysis 
[18]
I begin my analysis by attempting to establish whether the submissions belatedly filed by Mr Thomas otherwise complied with directions issued. The submissions filed by Mr Thomas consist of two documents: 
[a]
Memorandum Lawfulness of Review Hearing Pre-Hearings to Determine a Review Hearing Application to Be Invalid and Therefore a Reviewer Having No Jurisdiction, ACC Changing the Claimant's Issue to Their Own and Reviewers Declining Jurisdiction (“Jurisdictional Submissions”); and 
[b]
Memorandum Prehearing Addressing Applications Dependent upon a Longer Lodgement Time Allowed by the District Court (“Late Filing Submissions”). 
[19]
Having looked carefully at these submissions the following features are apparent: 
[a]
Neither the Jurisdictional Submissions nor the Late Filing Submissions include any submissions regarding any of the substantive issues in the 27 substantive appeals. A close inspection of the Jurisdictional Submission shows that there are “mix and match” submissions relating to jurisdictional matters in respect of four of the substantive appeals — AI 372/08, 373/08 and 398/08 and ACR 660/10. Given however, that in those reviews the reviewer did not decline jurisdiction and instead addressed the substantive issues (being respectively issues relating to an individual rehabilitation plan, cover — left arm, social rehabilitation and transport), I accept Mr Tuiqereqere's submissions that in respect of these four appeals, as with the other 23 substantive appeals, there are in fact no submissions that have been filed on the substantive issues before the Court. 
[b]
With regard to the jurisdictional appeals Mr Thomas' primary focus throughout the first 135 pages of his Jurisdictional Submissions (repeated at least nine times) is that a reviewer cannot decline jurisdiction to hear a review and therefore certain legal consequences flow from that position. At the end of the Jurisdictional Submissions there is a schedule (Annex 1) which lists the jurisdictional appeals (together with the four substantive appeals referred to in [18][a] above) in tabular form. Each of these appeals are cross-referenced to a list of propositions set out in pages 135-140 of the Jurisdictional Submissions that then apply to each of the jurisdictional appeals. Therefore, although somewhat difficult to follow and understand, and which do not at any point deal with the issue of whether the reviewer was correct to decline jurisdiction in any particular case, I am none the less satisfied that with regard to the jurisdictional appeals Mr Thomas has at least provided specific submissions in respect of all 91 of those appeals. 
[c]
With respect to the 81 appeals that were filed late (whether substantive or jurisdictional), Mr Thomas' Late Filing Submissions acknowledge that “a significant number of review hearing applications in excess of the 28 day requirement described in s 151(3)(a) [of the Accident Compensation Act 2001]”. The Late Filing Submissions, after reviewing a number of legal authorities then identify a series of broad propositions of “factors of incapacity contributing to delay” which provided detail in relation to the following headings: 
Chemical injuries causing lymph node, skin and lung damage; 
Both elbows and right dominant hand/wrist; 
Brain injury involving physical control over the right side of the body and language centre; 
Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from both accident event and of a sensitive claim type. 
[d]
Notwithstanding these matters it is apparent that there are no specific submissions on how any of these factors relate to the late filing of any particular appeal, and specifically as to why the late filing should be excused in any particular appeal. The minutes of 25 June 2014 and 4 July 2014 specifically directed that “submissions in respect of each appeal, and in particular separate submissions in support of the application for leave to file the appeal out of time and in support of the appeal itself” were to be filed by Mr Thomas. I am accordingly satisfied that no submissions in support of any particular application for leave to file an appeal out of time have indeed been filed as directed. 
[20]
As a result of my analysis of the submissions ultimately filed by Mr Thomas, different approaches are necessary as to whether to reinstate the substantive and jurisdictional appeals, and these are therefore addressed separately below. 
Exercise of Discretion to Reinstate — Substantive Appeals 
[21]
For the reasons set out in [18][a] above I accept the submissions of Mr Tuiqereqere that in fact no submissions have been filed in relation to the substantive appeals. As a result there has been no attempt to comply with directions in so far as they relate to the substantive appeals given the directions clearly provided that specific submissions were required in respect of each substantive appeal. 
[22]
The matters addressed by Mr Thomas in his memorandum in support of his application for reinstatement (noted in [14] and [15] above) which go to explaining the late filing of submissions generally, accordingly do not assist him in seeking reinstatement as they cannot explain the complete failure to comply with the directions. As a result, it is clear that in relation to the substantive appeals the breach of the unless order is in fact continuing and, as a result, Mr Thomas has failed to even attempt to satisfy the Court that justice demands their reinstatement. There can be no basis for the Court to entertain reinstatement based on substantive and/or belated compliance when the breach of the unless order in respect of the substantive appeals is in fact continuing. 
Exercise of Discretion to Reinstate — Jurisdictional Appeals 
[23]
The position with regard to the jurisdictional appeals is somewhat different. Here as noted in [18][b] above I accept that not only has Mr Thomas ultimately filed specific submissions in respect of each of the jurisdictional appeals but the length of those submissions as eventually filed demonstrate that Mr Thomas has clearly made a substantial effort to comply with the unless orders in respect of the jurisdictional appeals. In addition I accept that the fact that the submissions were delivered to the wrong appeal court was a factor beyond Mr Thomas's control, that the submissions were ultimately received only some five days late on 3 September 2014, that Mr Thomas may have had production issues occasioned with regard to the availability of a proof reader and/or indeed may have confused himself over application at the postal rule regarding the delivery of documents that meant the unless order was ultimately not complied with. 
[24]
On the other hand it is difficult to know what weight to put on Mr Thomas's claims of disability as a ground to excuse compliance with the directions. While Mr Thomas does have a history of acknowledged injuries and indeed still retains cover from the Corporation with regard to a number of claims, Mr Thomas's claimed degree of disability is undermined somewhat by his demonstrated capacity to file not only some 157 pages of submissions in support of the appeals but also an eight page submission in support of the application to reinstate within four days of having been informed that the appeals had been dismissed. In this regard the final medical assessment annexed by Mr Thomas as Exhibit 10 to the late filing submissions is relevant. This document, an assessment carried out by a visiting neurologist, Dr E Willoughby, on 9 April 2014 confirms “a substantial improvement in the pain and mobility in [Mr Thomas's] right wrist”, that “with the lessening of pain and improvement in function in his right arm he is interested at this stage in getting back to work”, and most importantly while Dr Willoughby “did not assess cognitive functions in detail … there was no indication of significant impairment”
[25]
Likewise I accept Mr Tuiqereqere's submission that issues around any failure by the Corporation to release reviewer's notes are not relevant to the matters on appeal, given these appeals to the Court are by way of rehearing, and it is equally difficult to see any relevance in Ms Thomas' contention that the Registry has failed to maintain files. In addition the lack of legal support cited by Mr Thomas was a factor taken into account when the timetable was set at the June and July directions conferences. 
[26]
More importantly the effect of the minutes of 25 June and 4 July 2014 were clear that the filing date was a last chance for Mr Thomas if he wished to proceed with all or any of these appeals which had not been advanced since they were filed. Mr Thomas' failure to comply with timetable orders has had significant flow on effects given that the dismissal of the appeals, and the need to deal with this application to reinstate, has meant that the fixture allocated to address the various appeals had to be vacated and has thereby deprived the Corporation of the chance to have these appeals heard in 2014 and instead means any hearing of these appeals would now be delayed until sometime in 2015. 
[27]
Of even greater significance, however, is that while I have acknowledged that individual submissions in respect of each jurisdictional appeal have been filed, the identified merits of the jurisdictional appeals themselves are exceedingly weak. In particular as noted at [19][b] above, the primary focus of Mr Thomas's Jurisdictional Submissions was that the respective reviewers did not have jurisdiction to decline jurisdiction to hear the reviews. Notwithstanding Mr Thomas quoted considerable case law in support of this proposition, as discussed with him at the hearing of this application the law is in fact settled (and certainly as far as this Court is concerned) that following the decision of Accident Compensation Corporation v O'Neil10
| X |Footnote: 10
[2012] NZCA 219 
a review hearing for the purposes of s 146(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001“includes a hearing about jurisdiction”.11
| X |Footnote: 11
At [42] 
 
[28]
Mr Thomas's focus on other aspects of the procedure at the review is likewise misplaced. Problems with the procedure undertaken by a reviewer are largely irrelevant to an appeal to this Court, given that it is an appeal by way of rehearing and for all intents and purposes this Court considers the matter afresh and on its merits. The focus of Mr Thomas should therefore have been on the basis for the reviewer declining jurisdiction. In the event that this Court ultimately finds that a reviewer was wrong to decline jurisdiction, the appropriate course is generally to refer the matter back to the reviewer to determine the substantive issue. In this case as noted at [18][b] above Mr Thomas has not at any point addressed the merits of why jurisdiction was declined in a particular case, far less to say that any particular review decision on jurisdiction was in fact wrong on its merits. 
[29]
Taking all these matters together — the lack of any identified merits, the overall procedural history of the appeals and the lost opportunity to hear these appeals in my view far outweigh any of the grounds identified by Mr Thomas to support the reinstatement of the jurisdictional appeals. As a result, I decline to reinstate any of the jurisdictional appeals. The lack of any specific reasons to support the late filing of those jurisdictional appeals that were filed outside the statutory timeframe would only further support my decision not to reinstate those appeals where the issue is relevant. 
Decision 
[30]
For the reasons set out above Mr Thomas's application to reinstate his 118 appeals is dismissed. Should the Corporation seek costs on the application, a memorandum on behalf of the Corporation is to be filed by 30 January 2015. If a memorandum is filed, Mr Thomas will have until 27 February 2015 to respond, following which I will determine the issue. 


AI 097/06, 404/06, 407/06, 415/06, 371/08, 372/08, 373/08, 374/08, 377/08, 381/08, 386/08, 397/08, 398/08, 401/08, 403/08, 405/08, 414/08 and 415/08, AI 424/08, 189/09, 190/09, ACR 41/10, 42/10, 43/10, 660/10, 843/10, 5/11 
AI 299/05, 098/06, 099/06, 101/06, 405/06, 408/06, 109/06, 410/06, 412/06, 413/06 414/06, 294/08, 353/08, 354/08, 355/08, 356/08, 357/08, 358/08, 359/08, 360/08, 361/08, 362/08, 363/08, 364/08, 365/08, 366/08, 367/08, 368/08, 369/08, 370/08, 375/08, 376/08, 378/08, 379/08, 380/08, 382/08, 383/08, 384/08, 385/08, 387/08, 388/08, 389/08, 390/08, 391/08, 392/08, 393/08, 394/08, 395/08, 396/08, 399/08, 400/08, 402/08, 404/08, 406/08, 407/08, 408/08, 409/08, 410/08, 411/08, 412/08, 413/08 and 416/08, AI 417/08, 418/08, 419/08, 420/08, 421/08, 422/08, 423/08, 425/08, 426/08, 82/09, 185/09, 190/09, ACR 40/10, 43/10, 278/10, 654/10, 655/10, 656/10, 657/10, 658/10, 659/10, 661/10, 110/11, 111/11, 112/11, 113/11, 114/11, 115/11, 116/11, 194/11, and 373/11 
AI 405/06, 353,08, 354/08, 355/08, 356/08, 357/08, 358/08, 359/08, 360/08, 361/08, 362/08, 363/08, 364/08, 365/08, 366/08, 367/08, 368/08, 369/08, 370/08, 375/08, 376/08, 378/08, 379/08, 380/08, 382/08, 383/08, 384/08, 385/08, 387/08, 388/08, 389/08, 390/08, 391/08, 392/08, 393/08, 394/08, 395/08, 396/08, 399/08, 400/08, 402/08, 404/08, 406/08, 407/08, 408/08, 409/08, 410/08, 411/08, 412/08, 413/08 and 416/08, 404/06, 407/06, 415/06, 371/08, 372/08, 373/08, 374/08, 377/08, 381/08, 386/08, 397/08, 398/08, 401/08, 403/08, 405/08, 414/08, AI 417/08, 418/08, 419/08, 420/08, 421/08, 422/08, 423/08, 425/08, 426/08, ACR 40/10, 43/10 and 278/10. 
Including Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 89Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 186Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZACC 35Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZACC 36Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZHC 2296Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZHC 3206Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZHC 1073Has Litigation History which is not known to be negative[Blue] ; Thomas v Accident Rehabilitation Compensation Insurance Corporation DC Auckland DCA 129-98, 21 April 2010; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACC 91; Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation DC Auckland AI 100-06, 10 September 2007
Noting that Mr Thomas' appeals were however put on hold by the Registry on 22 May 2012 pending the outcome of his then appeal to the High Court, which appeal was determined on 30 November 2012 
McMenamin v Attorney-General [1985] 2 NZLR 274 (CA)Has partially negative history or cases citing, but has not been reversed or overruled[Yellow]  
Zhao v Wallace [2009] DCR 55Has Cases Citing which are not known to be negative[Green]  at [44]-[45]. 
[2014] NZCA 326
[1997] 1 WLR 1666 (CA) 
[2012] NZCA 219 
At [42] 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents