Overland Footwear Company Limited v Accident Compensation Corporation

Overland Footwear Company Limited v Accident Compensation Corporation

By consent the appeal was allowed, the Review decision dated 26 August 1999 was quashed, and the question whether Diane Clark suffered a gradual process injury while employed by the Appellant was remitted to the Respondent for a further review hearing under s164(2)(c) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] NZACC 49
Parties
Appellant: Overland Footwear Company Limited; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Review decision dated 26 August 1999 quashed; matter referred to Respondent for further review hearing under s164(2)(c) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998.
Legal Topics
Review, Appeal, Gradual Process Injury, Referral for Further Review
Accident Compensation Administrative Law Employment Injury Review Appeal Gradual Process Injury Referral for Further Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Overland Footwear Company Limited

Appellant

Accident Compensation Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's former employee Diane Clark suffered a gradual process injury to her back while employed by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Review decision dated 26 August 1999 should be quashed
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted to the respondent for a further review hearing

Ratio Decidendi

By consent the appeal was allowed, the Review decision dated 26 August 1999 was quashed, and the question whether Diane Clark suffered a gradual process injury while employed by the Appellant was remitted to the Respondent for a further review hearing under s164(2)(c) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Review decision dated 26 August 1999 quashed; matter referred to Respondent for further review hearing under s164(2)(c) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Review decision dated 26 August 1999 quashed.