New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 15

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2016

Irwin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 58
Court

District Court

The Court held that clause 31 requires the Corporation to take tax returns into account but does not extinguish the statutory power under s15(3) to determine a reasonable remuneration amount where the subsection (2) amount is not a reasonable representation; given the stark post-accident apportionment and supporting evidence the respondent was entitled to adjust the appellant's earnings to $34,791.79 for abatement, so the appeal was dismissed.
6 May 2011

Accident Compensation Corporation v Davis

Citation

[2011] NZACC 134
Court

District Court

The Court accepted the respondent's credible explanations and contemporary evidence (regular drawings, provisional tax payments, comparable prior years' remuneration and commercial contracts) and held the 2007 income tax return was not unreasonably influenced by incapacity; accordingly the Reviewer was correct to quash the Corporation's primary decision and the respondent's weekly compensation must be determined on the basis of the 2007 tax return.
17 Jun 2005

Bell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 179
Court

District Court

Rehabilitation objectives in the IRP were achieved and referral was not premature; the occupational assessor permissibly identified specific sales subcategories based on the appellant's skills and experience; the medical assessor conducted a thorough assessment, considered solvent exposure and fatigue and relied on medical panel findings, and absent clear compelling evidence to the contrary the decision that the appellant had capacity for work in four identified job types (30+ hours/week) was correct; appeal dismissed.
27 Aug 2003

Siola'a v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 211
Court

District Court

The Court upheld Catalyst’s decision because the occupational and medical assessments were adequate to establish capacity for 30 or more hours per week; the appellant’s actual employment at the relevant duties and hours corroborated the assessments; the medical assessor’s reservation related only to a 35‑hour threshold and did not invalidate the 30‑hour finding; therefore Catalyst’s decision of 1 February 2002 was correct.

New Zealand Case Law

Irwin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Accident Compensation Corporation v Davis

Bell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Siola'a v Accident Compensation Corporation