A man who was dismissed from his job after his legs were crushed by a car in a freak accident wants to take his former employer to court again.
The Employment Relations Authority heard that Alan Robinson was seriously injured when a car drove through a large glass window in his workplace, and crashed into him at his desk in June 2011.
The driver of the car had suffered a medical seizure while driving, which had caused her to travel through a carpark, then through a large glass window, a counter and a partition wall before ending up at Mr Robinson's work station.
The accident left Mr Robinson significantly injured and hospitalised for some time.
Following his accident, his employer, Pacific Seals New Zealand Ltd, a small engineering business in Petone, topped up Mr Robinson's accident compensation payments for almost a year.
The company also offered support to Mr Robinson during his recovery.
However, 11 months after the incident, Mr Robinson's employment was terminated.
Mr Robinson initially pursued a personal grievance through the Employment Relations Authority, alleging that his dismissal was unjustified and that he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged in his employment.
The authority upheld his grievance, and he was awarded $5000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
Mr Robinson then challenged the authority's determination at the Employment Court in 2014, on the grounds that compensation awarded to him should be increased.
In a written judgement released last year, Judge Christina Inglis dismissed Mr Robinson's challenge.
"Having regards to all matters before me, I consider that the award of $5000 was within the permissible range."
Today, Mr Robinson's lawyer Tania Kennedy, appeared at the Wellington Employment Court to apply for a re-hearing.
She told Judge Inglis today the court should hear all evidence afresh - as opposed to the original hearing where evidence from the Employment Relations Authority was considered.
However, lawyer appearing on behalf of Pacific Seals, John Tannahill, said a re-hearing was without merit, and there were no exceptional circumstances for which to call one.
Judge Inglis reserved her decision.