ESTATE OF S C SIMPSON V ACC HC WN CIV-2005-485-717 [2006] NZHC 281 (27 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
                                                                   CIV-2005-485-717

               UNDER                      s 163 of the Injury Prevention,
                                          Rehabilitation,
and Compensation Act 2001


               BETWEEN                    THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY CLAUDE
                              
           SIMPSON
                                          Appellant

               AND                        ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
                                          CORPORATION
                                          Respondent


Hearing:       27 March
2006

Appearances: J M Miller for Appellant
             P A McBride for Respondent

Judgment:      27 March 2006


            
             JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J



[1]    The Estate of Sydney Claude Simpson seeks leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeal from
my judgment of 3 November 2005, on the grounds that I erred in my
interpretation of the meaning of s 121(2)(b) Accident Compensation
Act 1972. The
interpretation point at issue was whether that section encompassed compensation for
historical estimates of the value
of assistance gratuitously provided by a family
member to a claimant.


[2]    Section 121(2)(b) of the 1972 Act came into force
on 1 April 1974. It had an
equivalent in the 1982 Act in the form of s 80(2)(b) of that Act, which section was
repealed on 30 June
1992. Given the time span of 18 years the two sections have
potentially applied to a number of claimants. Mr Miller made it clear
that the appeal




ESTATE OF S C SIMPSON V ACC HC WN CIV-2005-485-717 27 March 2006

I determined was one of a number of similar
cases, the outcome of which are all
affected by my decision.


[3]     Mr McBride advised that the Corporation would simply abide
as to whether
leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal should be granted.


[4]     I am satisfied, on application of the principles
in Waller v Hider  [1998] 1
NZLR 412, that the case does involve a seriously arguable question of law of
sufficient public interest to justify review by the Court of
Appeal. Accordingly,
leave to appeal is granted. Counsel are to confer and to submit for my approval a
suitable question or questions
for the consideration of the Court of Appeal.




Solicitors:
John Miller Law, Wellington, for the Appellant
Broadmore Barnett, Wellington,
for Respondent