New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Calculation of weekly compensation

Legal area

Court

15 May 2019

Tuki and Harrison v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 49
Court

District Court

The District Court concluded that the central legal question is the proper interpretation of "termination of employment" in cl 49(3) of Schedule 1 and whether immediate payment of holiday pay permits an inference of termination; because the factual record shows employees returned to work and there was no resignation or dismissal, the issue raises a mixed question of fact and law appropriate for determination by the High Court, and leave to appeal is granted.
19 Mar 2019

Lythgoe v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to Appeal)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 18
Court

District Court

The dispute over whether 'immediately before incapacity' requires actual immediacy of earnings or permits consideration of self-employment earnings in the preceding 12 months raises a question of law suitable for High Court determination; accordingly leave to appeal is granted on that question.
29 Jan 2016

Poihegatama v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 26
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested point of law was not capable of bona fide and serious argument: the appellant was a paid earner working 30 hours per week at the time of incapacity and therefore was not on unpaid parental leave for the purposes of cl 44(1) and cl 44(2); consequently ACC correctly calculated weekly compensation under cl 34.
3 Jun 2011

Lamb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 170
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law capable of bona fide argument was raised; the correct legal test is that interest runs from one month after ACC received all necessary information, there is no entitlement to compound interest, the divisor 3.14 was correct and ACC's decision was favourable so no appellate intervention was required.
3 Jun 2011

Lamb v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 171
Court

District Court

Judge Beattie correctly applied clause 36(1)(b) by dividing total earnings for the four weeks immediately prior to incapacity ($1,380) by the number of calendar weeks in which work was done (22 days = 3.14 weeks), treating part weeks as a fraction of seven days to prevent awarding weekly compensation in excess of actual earnings; no question of law was established for High Court leave.
29 Jan 2010

Morgan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 12
Court

District Court

The Corporation was required to apply the law in force when it determined the appellant's entitlement to interest (the 2001 Act); section 371 of the 2001 Act preserves but modifies section 72 of the 1992 Act such that interest is not payable for periods before 1 July 1992, and therefore the appellant's challenge based on earlier application of s72 fails; appeal dismissed.
29 May 2008

Nicholas v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 110
Court

District Court

The Corporation correctly calculated weekly compensation using the $60,000 income returned to the IRD because Schedule 1 Clause 31 requires the tax return to be taken into account when it is not influenced by incapacity; subsection(3) of section 15 only applies where the subsection(2) tax-return amount is not a reasonable representation or following an amended tax return, and the appellant may obtain reassessment only by filing an amended return.
30 Apr 2008

Reichenbach v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 96
Court

District Court

The Court held that under s41(3) of the 1992 Act the Corporation was required to rely on a filed income tax return (or IRD reassessment confirming the amount) to calculate pre‑incapacity earnings; the accountants' letter of June 1996 did not meet that statutory prescription and the Corporation did not have "all information necessary" until it received the IRD reassessment documentation in May 1998 (received 8 May 1998). Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
21 Apr 2008

Chand v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 88
Court

District Court

The District Court's earlier grant of a rehearing on whether Australian income could be taken into account was made without jurisdiction in light of the High Court decision in Khan v ACC; accordingly the Court, by consent, granted leave to the appellant to appeal to the High Court on that single issue and directed the parties to seek that the High Court join that issue with the special leave application and refer it back to the District Court for determination on the available evidence.
1 Feb 2008

Bruce v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 30
Court

District Court

The 14 day deeming period in Clause 43 excludes the day of cessation; incapacity must begin during that 14 day period and did not begin on 29 June 2002, therefore the claimant was not deemed an employee on the date of injury and there is no bona fide serious question of law to justify leave to appeal.