16 Jul 1999
The District Court held that the questions raised about the interpretation of "permanent employment" and the interplay between ss.40 and 42 raised questions of law suitable for the High Court, and therefore granted leave to appeal.
30 Apr 1999
Because the appellant was on unpaid maternity leave and was not engaged in paid work immediately before the commencement of incapacity, she was not an "earner" under s.3 and therefore not entitled to compensation under ss.39 or 40; s.44 did not apply; the court followed Vasquez and applied a strict ordinary‑meaning construction of the statutory definitions.
28 May 1998
The appellant was not an earner immediately before the commencement of incapacity; 'immediately' in s.40(1) is to be strictly construed; s.44(2) extended the appellant's deemed employment via holiday pay beyond 14 days so s.44(1) did not apply under s.44(3); employment contract authorities and employer policy do not override the statutory test, therefore no entitlement to weekly compensation and the review officer's decision was correct.
15 Apr 1997
The appellant ceased employment in March 1993 because of fear for her safety from physical assault and was not an earner immediately before the commencement of incapacity from the sexual abuse; therefore s.40 does not apply and she is not entitled to weekly compensation under the Act for the sexual abuse claim.