COMPENSATION CLAIM

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1931, Page 3

COMPENSATION CLAIM

NEW HEARING REFUSED. LIMITED POWERS OF COURT. The question whether the Arbitration Court is empowered to grant a rehearing of a case heard before it if evidence ia brought to show that the judgment originally given was delivered as the result of the Court being misled by one of the parties was discussed in the Court at Auckland on Tuesday, when an application for a rehearing was heard. It was stated that although legislative provision had been made for the rehearing of cases in the Supreme Court and. Magistrate’s Court, no provision had been made for the rehearing of compensation cases in the Arbitration Court. The case was an application by Laurence Vodanovich, Fabourer, of Auckland. (Mr. Noble), for a rehearing of a claim _ for compensation against W. J. Woods, contractor, of Te Kuiti (Mr. Hore).. The case was originally heard at Hamilton on March 4, when plaintiff claimed he had disabled his knee when he was working for defendant at Pio Pio, and sought weekly compensation, medical expenses and future compentsatiou. Judgment was given for defendant. Mr. Noble said the motion was one for a new trial, alleging the judgment at Hamilton had been obtained by fraud. It was alleged that two witnesses for Woods had given false testimony. “If their evidence is false, we say that the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff and not that for defendant is to ba believed,” said counsel, who quoted authorities to show that where judgment had been obtained by fraud the Court should reverse its decision. Mr. Hore said there was no evidence in the affidavits brought forward on behalf of plaintiff on which the Court could rely. The evidence was all the other way. “We have to be satisfied that there has been fraud, or that other improper methods have been employed,” said Mr. Justice Frazer. “If there has been fraud, we can set aside the judgment under the Act.” He then read the sec-. tion of the Workers’ Compensation Act empowering the Court to set aside or vary its orders. Mr. Hore submitted that the Court had no power to either order a new trial or to set aside its judgment. No jurisdiction similar to that provided in the cases of the Supreme Court and the Magistrate’s Court had been allowed by the Legislature. “It would be a scandalous thing if this Court were the only Court in the British Empire which has to stand aside and see a judgment tainted by fraud allowed,” said Mr. Noble. “It is a shockingly drafted Act,” said his Honour. If the contention of Mr. Hore were correct, the Court would have the power to reconsider the amount allowed-by au order against defendants in cases where it was later proved that plaintiffs had obtained judgment by fraud, but could not give plaintiffs relief when defendants had by fraudulent methods resisted a genuine claim. Mr. Hore said it had been the intention of the Legislature to establish the Court as a working man’s Court, and not to allow appeals, in case defendants with the greater amount of money should escape their obligations by continuing the litigation further. Even if it -were shown that perjury had been committed, the Court had no power to order a new hearing. “The matter involved is important,” said Mr. Justice Frazer, when the Court gave its decision. There was nothing about the evidence of the” two men to suggest that they had committed perjury, or to show that they had given improper' evidence through carelessness or recklessness. “A new trial or the setting aside of a judgment should be granted only in very special circumstances,” commented his Honour. “It is probably an oversight that the Act does not make provision for a new trial or a neWheating where it would be in the interests of justice. I know that it has been intentionally provided that there should be no appeal from this Court. If appeals were permitted, then there is no doubt that the workmen -who are usually plaintiffs would in the long run be at a disadvantage, but it does seem that some provision should be made for a rehearing when the Court thinks fit.” The new hearing was refused on the grounds that the evidence in support . was insufficient. Defendant was allawed £5 ss. costs. . ' / ,