New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Permanent employment definition

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2010

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 97
Court

District Court

The respondent correctly classified the appellant as not in permanent employment because material obtained prior to the decision (loss/suspension of the P endorsement and termination of employment) demonstrated he would not have continued to receive earnings from that employment for a continuous period of more than 12 months; therefore Clause 36, not Clause 34, applied to calculate weekly compensation.
10 Dec 2008

CHAND V THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC AK CIV 2008-485-000270

Citation

openlaw-241211d6_8181_4128_9a1e_0bca04fe5693.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the insurer is entitled to consider all relevant circumstantial evidence up to the date of its decision, including events occurring after the date of incapacity, when forming an opinion under clause 8(3) of Schedule 1 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 as to whether the claimant was in permanent employment; no implied limitation restricting the insurer to evidence available at the date of incapacity was to be read into the clause and an employer's letter is not automatically determinative.
5 Jul 2005

Ryan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 199
Court

District Court

Clause 34 must be applied employer by employer: 'a' and 'b' refer to earnings from the claimant's permanent employer at the date of incapacity and the divisor 'b' must reflect the actual number of weeks including fractional part-weeks (i.e. count partial weeks as fractions) so as to give a fair and realistic weekly-earnings figure; ambiguity resolved purposively to avoid unfairness.
22 Mar 2004

Saunders v QVE Insurance (International) Ltd

Citation

[2004] NZACC 72
Court

District Court

Employer's contemporaneous statements and the undated explanatory letter established that employment was conditional on availability of building contracts and lacked guaranteed continued wages; therefore it was not 'permanent' under Clause 8(3) and the insurer correctly applied Clauses 10 and 11; appeal dismissed.
23 Jun 2003

Van Huysen v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 135
Court

District Court

Cranberry products and vitamin supplements are not payable because they were not prescribed pharmaceuticals or ancillary services within Clause 2(3); the appellant qualified as in permanent employment based on the employer’s evidence and therefore weekly compensation must be recalculated under Clauses 8 and 9 using weeks actually worked as divisor; childcare provided by the husband and reimbursement of his lost wages are excluded by Clauses 45(4) and 46(3).

New Zealand Case Law

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

CHAND V THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC AK CIV 2008-485-000270

Ryan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Saunders v QVE Insurance (International) Ltd

Van Huysen v Accident Compensation Corporation