Dixon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Dixon v Accident Compensation Corporation

Section 71 of the 1982 Act was not preserved by the 1992 Act or by transitional provisions and the Accident Insurance Act 1998 contains no power to commute weekly compensation to a lump sum; therefore the Corporation lacks statutory authority to commute the appellant's weekly compensation and the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
[2000] NZACC 142
Parties
Appellant: Peter Dixon; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Insurance Act 1998 S152 / Reserved Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Commutation of Weekly Compensation, Repeal and Transitional Provisions, Ultra Vires Actions, Rights Under Repealed Statutes
Accident Compensation Law Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Public Law Commutation of Weekly Compensation Repeal and Transitional Provisions Ultra Vires Actions Rights Under Repealed Statutes

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Dixon

Appellant

Accident Compensation Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Accident Insurance Act 1998 S152 / Reserved Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Corporation has statutory power to commute weekly compensation to a lump sum under the applicable Acts
  2. 2 Whether section 71 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 survives for claimants whose cover began under the 1982 Act
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal decision in Watton supports the appellant's claim to commutation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 71 of the 1982 Act was not preserved by the 1992 Act or by transitional provisions and the Accident Insurance Act 1998 contains no power to commute weekly compensation to a lump sum; therefore the Corporation lacks statutory authority to commute the appellant's weekly compensation and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Corporation dated 9 September 1999 confirming refusal to commute weekly compensation is affirmed