Accident Compensation Corporation v Thomas

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA670/2013
[2014] NZCA 448

BETWEEN	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Applicant
AND	ALAN THOMAS Respondent

Court:

Stevens, White and French JJ

Counsel:

D K L Tuiqereqere for Applicant
Respondent in person

Judgment:

(On the papers)

15 September 2014 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for costs is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2014, we dismissed Mr Thomas’ application for special leave to appeal.[1] The Accident Compensation Corporation did not apply for costs and no costs award was made.
[1]Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 89.
Mr Thomas then applied for a recall of the judgment. In a subsequent decision we dismissed the application for recall and awarded costs against Mr Thomas.[2]
[2]Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 186.
ACC has now applied for costs on the application for special leave.
In our view the application for costs is too late. Costs were not sought at the time. In our assessment the recall application was in a different category.
The application for costs is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Medico Law Ltd, Auckland for Applicant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application for costs by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) against Alan Thomas. This matter stems from a prior appeal where Thomas sought special leave to appeal a decision. The initial application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded at that stage. Thomas subsequently applied for a recall of the judgment, which was also dismissed, with costs awarded against him. ACC now seeks costs associated with the recall application. The Court of Appeal found that the application for costs was untimely, as costs were not requested during the original proceedings. The Court assessed that the recall application, being a subsequent event, warranted a different consideration. The application for costs was therefore dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Accident Compensation Corporation was entitled to costs for the recall application proceedings. Given that no costs were requested during the initial proceedings, the Court had to determine if the recall application warranted a different treatment regarding costs. The Court considered whether the timing and nature of the recall application justified a departure from the usual rule that costs are not awarded if not sought at the initial stage.

The Court of Appeal held that the application for costs was too late and dismissed the application. The reasoning was that costs were not sought during the initial proceedings, and the recall application, while a separate event, did not constitute a sufficient ground to deviate from the general principle that costs are not awarded if not requested at the appropriate stage. The Court concluded that the recall application did not fall into a different category that would warrant an exception to the usual rule on costs. The application for costs was thus dismissed, aligning with the Court's assessment that the timing of the request was critical and did not justify awarding costs in this instance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established