4 Dec 1998
Reihana v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Citation
- [1998] NZACC 254
- Court
- District Court
The application for leave was refused because the court held that section 40(2A) is clear in meaning and, on the facts, the appellant's employment was temporary/casual through a personnel agency and therefore did not qualify as 'permanent employment', so no question of law for the High Court was established.
- Reassessment of weekly compensation
- Definition of permanent employment under s40(2a)
- Leave to appeal