There are renewed calls for the country's highest court to hear ACC claims after a case of a botched sterilisation was thrown out by the Court of Appeal.
Photo: Pixabay / CC0 Public Domain
The woman in question was sterilised in 1998 but became pregnant and gave birth in 2006, and has been fighting for weekly compensation for the cost of raising her child ever since.
In a two-to-one decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the woman's case, leaving her with few legal options as it cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The woman, known only as Ms J, was paid costs by ACC during her pregnancy but her claim for weekly loss of earnings and compensation for having to stay at home to care for her child were turned down.
The case has been through the courts and a number of reviews in the years since.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms J's claim, with two of the three judges saying she had recovered from her pregnancy, was not injured, and did not require rehabilitation.
Her lawyer Andrew Beck said his client was left with few options as the case could not go any higher legally.
"You can't get to the Supreme Court on ACC cases, which is a bit of a sore point with people in the jurisdiction because when you get an important case like this there's not really any reason why you shouldn't be able to get the Supreme Court's view on it."
The third judge, Justice Stephen Kos, disagreed with his two colleagues, arguing Ms J had been entitled to compensation for as long as the need to care for the child stopped her returning to work.
Andrew Beck said Justice Kos' dissenting viewpoint offered hope, though his client still had no clear answer.
"She will obviously be disappointed because she has been through a very long process, she has been unlucky because the law changed half way through her case."
In April, the Law Society president wrote to the ACC Minister and Justice Minister asking for a law change to allow ACC claims to be appealed in the Supreme Court.
It came after Ms J applied for leave to appeal directly to the country's highest court failed in February.
In a statement, ACC Minister Michael Woodhouse said there was not sufficient justification to consider amending the current Act to allow for higher appeals for ACC claims.
However, barrister and ACC researcher Warren Forster said the legislation was outdated.
"The fact that ACC appeals can't go any higher than the Court of Appeal needs to change, these types of decisions do raise important policy questions and it's important we can get these addressed by the Supreme Court, that's its role in New Zealand to determine the law in the public interest."
Mr Forster said Ms J's case was a great example of why some ACC claims needed to be heard in the Supreme Court.
"The judge in the District Court ruled one way, the High Court judge ruled another, and then the Court of Appeal judges were split two to one, so this is one of those cases that has made its way through the court system with judges ruling different ways.
"What Parliament has done here is say you can have access to every court but the Supreme Court - it just doesn't work," Mr Forster said.
Ms J and her lawyer will study the latest judgement before deciding what to do next.