Poad v Accident Compensation Corporation

Poad v Accident Compensation Corporation

Leave to appeal refused because no seriously arguable question of law: the 2001 Act's definitions and Part 11 transitional scheme govern entitlement to weekly compensation for incapacity arising after 1 April 2002; s355 preserves cover but does not preserve 1982 Act definitions for entitlements and s365 requires entitlement immediately before transition which the applicant did not demonstrate.

Citation
[2016] NZACC 302
Parties
Applicant: Andrea Poad; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court on a Question of Law Under S162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 / District Court Judgment on the Papers (leave Application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Weekly Compensation, Definition of Earner/employment, Transitional Provisions, Retrospectivity
Accident Compensation Law Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Weekly Compensation Definition of Earner/employment Transitional Provisions Retrospectivity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrea Poad

Applicant

Accident Compensation Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court on a Question of Law Under S162 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 / District Court Judgment on the Papers (leave Application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s103 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 requires application of 1982 Act definitions of "earner" and "employment" for injuries suffered before 2002
  2. 2 Whether s365 or other Part 11 transitional provisions preserve entitlement to weekly compensation for the applicant
  3. 3 Whether applicant held "earner status" under the 1982 Act such that entitlements under the 2001 Act must be assessed accordingly

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because no seriously arguable question of law: the 2001 Act's definitions and Part 11 transitional scheme govern entitlement to weekly compensation for incapacity arising after 1 April 2002; s355 preserves cover but does not preserve 1982 Act definitions for entitlements and s365 requires entitlement immediately before transition which the applicant did not demonstrate.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the High Court refused
  • Application dismissed with no issue as to costs