Walker v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Leave to appeal was granted because the central questions concerning the statutory meaning of 'earnings as an employee' and 'earnings other than as an employee' under the Act and the Earnings Definitions Regulations 1992, and whether royalties constitute earnings for abatement under section 47, are questions of law...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 288
- Parties
- Appellant: Colin Ronald Walker; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 October 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (district Court)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the High Court granted.
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of 'earnings' and 'assessable Income', Abatement Under Section 47, Treatment of Royalties for Weekly Compensation, Leave to Appeal Under Section 91
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Colin Ronald Walker
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (district Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Corporation was correct to base weekly compensation entitlement on 'liable' earnings excluding royalties rather than 'assessable income' including royalties
- 2 Whether royalties received after commencement of incapacity for work done before incapacity constitute 'earnings' for the purposes of abatement under section 47
- 3 Meaning of 'earnings as an employee' and 'earnings other than as an employee' under the Act and the Earnings Definitions Regulations 1992 as applied to royalties
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the central questions concerning the statutory meaning of 'earnings as an employee' and 'earnings other than as an employee' under the Act and the Earnings Definitions Regulations 1992, and whether royalties constitute earnings for abatement under section 47, are questions of law appropriate for determination by the High Court.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the High Court granted.
Orders
- Leave granted to the appellant to appeal the decision of His Honour Judge A W Middleton dated 11 June 1999 to the High Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 28 8 199 IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN COLIN RONALD WALKER DCA 18/99 Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT The appellant has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of His Honour Judge A W Middleton, issued on the 11" day of June 1999 under No. 145/99. There were two issues for determination in that appeal. 2 i) Whether the Corporation was correct in basing the appellant's entitlement to weekly compensation on his "liable" earnings on which he had paid ACC premiums (i.e. his income excluding royalties), and not on his "assessable income" as returned in his income tax return, which included royalties. ii) Whether the royalties received after the commencement of incapacity, for work done before the incapacity commenced, were "earnings" for the purposes of the abatement provisions of section 47. The facts which required to be considered for the determination of those issues were not in dispute and are noted by His Honour in the second page of his decision. The issue which has been identified by counsel for the appellant, namely the meaning of the expressions "earnings as an employee" and "earnings other than as an employee" , within the meaning of the Act and the Earnings Definitions Regulations 1992, as those expressions apply to the appellant's royalties and other income and the effects that those two categories of remuneration have on his entitlements to weekly compensation, are questions of law and as such it is appropriate that these questions be considered by the High Court. Accordingly leave is granted to the appellant to appeal the decision of His Honour to the High Court. DATED at WELLINGTON this 1 3 day of October 1999 M J Beattie District Court Judge 18.99 Walker.doc(gm)