We have updated our website and myADLS. To access your myADLS account, please reset your password by using the “Forgot password” option or Click Here. If you need further assistance, contact us at helpdesk@adls.org.nz or 09 871 1385.

Back Home 5 News 5 Teen granted leave to appeal ACC decision following delay in treatment

Teen granted leave to appeal ACC decision following delay in treatment

25 Aug 2023

| Author: Jamie Dierick

Accident Compensation Act 2001 – application for cover for treatment injury – application denied – special leave based on a question of law – application of Accident Compensation Corporation v Ambros – whether the delay in treatment caused the injury – special leave granted to determine whether delay caused the injuries  

AR v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZCA 354 per Gilbert and Mallon JJ.


AR became unwell while on holiday in January 2017. He was 15.

His mother contacted an out-of-hours medical centre helpline. Due to incorrect medical advice through the helpline, there was a delay of seven-and-a-half to eight hours before a diagnosis of, and in-hospital treatment for, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) was received.

AR remained in intensive care on a ventilator for three months.

AR suffers severe effects from GBS and requires help with all his daily activities. He may improve in the next two or three years but some residual disabilities may remain.

The applicant sought cover from ACC for treatment injury as a result of the delay in treatment. ACC denied the claim on the basis the delay did not cause GBS or increase the severity of it.

ACC’s decision was upheld on review and on appeal to the District Court.

The appeal to the High Court on a question of law was dismissed. AR then applied for special leave to go to the Court of Appeal.

Special leave can be granted if there is a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument in a case involving some interest, public or private, of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

The Court of Appeal decided the District Court approach looked for certainty in the medical literature or relied on the opinions of two doctors who were looking for certainty in the medical literature, and that the delay in treatment was likely to have caused an increase in the severity of the applicant’s symptoms.


Applicable principles:  treatment injury – Ambros test for causation of injuries as a result of treatment (or failure to treat) – special leave on the question of law – high public interest outweighing cost and delay.


Held: The application for leave to appeal was granted on the following question of law: whether the High Court misdirected itself on the application of Ambros by misapplying the relevant factors or overlooking relevant factors in assessing whether the claimant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, the delay in treatment caused him personal injury additional to the injuries he would otherwise have suffered because of his Guillain-Barré Syndrome.


Jamie Dierick is a law clerk for an Auckland criminal defence barrister.


AR v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZCA 354.

Subscribe to LawNews

The weekly online publication is full of journalistic articles written for those in the legal profession. With interviews, thought pieces, case notes and analysis of current legal events, LawNews is a key source of news and insights for anyone working within or alongside the legal field.

Sign in or
become a Member
to join the discussion.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Articles

Tricky times for Kiwi companies still operating in Russia

When Russia invaded Ukraine on 22 February last year, New Zealand fund managers, companies and other entities scrambled to announce that they would divest their Russian assets. Many did. But for others, Russia has proven to be a case study in just how difficult it can be to divest.

read more

Killer Beez prospect admits burglaries, gets sentenced reduced on appeal

Kara Pompey pleaded guilty in the Auckland District Court to six charges of burglary of commercial premises in Auckland and New Plymouth and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Pompey appealed this sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive and the sentencing judge failed to place sufficient weight on mitigating factors.

read more