New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Weekly compensation calculation

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2018

Tuki and Harrison v Accident Compensation Corporation (Abatement Clause)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 194
Court

District Court

The collective and winter processing arrangements established discontinuous seasonal employment that terminated at season end on 3 July 2015; holiday pay was therefore a payment on termination and under cl 49(3) Schedule 1 must be treated as post-termination earnings for a corresponding period, justifying abatement of weekly compensation until the holiday pay period expired.
15 Jun 2018

Lythgoe v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation Calculation)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 95
Court

District Court

Clause 36(3)(c)(iii) was not satisfied because the appellant remained self‑employed up to the date of incapacity and would have continued to receive self‑employment earnings but for the injury; therefore the divisor of 52 is correctly applied and ACC's calculations and the reviewer's decision are upheld (cl 41 governs aggregation/options and produces the same long‑term weekly compensation).
12 Sept 2017

Young v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 111
Court

District Court

Given the appellant's numerous and effective contacts with ACC, acceptance of the calculations for a significant period, and the lengthy unexplained delay, the Court held there were no extenuating circumstances under s135(3) and the reviewer correctly refused to accept the late review application.
29 Jul 2016

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 201
Court

District Court

Evidence obtained after the 8 November 2013 decision established the appellant's employment was fixed-term and that the Ministry payroll advice that he was 'permanent' was factually wrong; that factual error met the Bartels threshold of being 'clearly wrong' and therefore ACC was entitled to revoke and recalculate weekly compensation under s65(1); appeal dismissed.
19 May 2016

POIHEGATAMA v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 1047

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1047
Court

High Court

No arguable question of law existed because claimant was properly categorised as an earner in permanent employment and met cl 33(1) so cl 34 governed calculation; there was no evidence of a valid unpaid parental leave arrangement under the PLEP Act (including any s27(2)(d) four‑way agreement or required statutory notices), and cl 44 therefore did not apply; consequently special leave to appeal was declined.
30 Oct 2015

Accident Compensation Corporation v Rusher

Citation

[2015] NZACC 322
Court

District Court

The Court held clause 39(2)(a) of the First Schedule and the 'relevant year' definition govern calculation; because the respondent had no shareholder-employee earnings in the relevant year the statutory formula yields nil for that period and section 15(3) cannot be used to substitute earnings from a later tax year or to override clause 39; accordingly the reviewer's decision was quashed and the original weekly compensation assessment reinstated.
30 Jan 2015

Poihegatama v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 23
Court

District Court

Working part-time to care for a child does not constitute 'unpaid parental leave' for the purposes of clause 44(2); the appellant was an earner in permanent employment with earnings immediately before incapacity, so clause 34 governed the weekly compensation calculation; ACC's calculation under clause 34 was correct.
19 Dec 2014

Guillum-Scott v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 341
Court

District Court

The court found the best evidence (local real estate data and Department of Building and Housing bond statistics) established the market rental in 1999 at $135 per week and, applying the statutory scheme and Inland Revenue practice, the market rental is a gross taxable in‑kind benefit (a source deduction payment) so no separate tax adjustment is required; accordingly the Corporation's figure is amended from $80 to $135 per week.
22 Nov 2013

T v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 387
Court

District Court

The first lump sum of $13,876.92 was correctly characterised as a retiring allowance rather than wages in lieu of notice; a retiring allowance falls within the s11 exception to 'earnings' and therefore the payment should not have been abated against ACC weekly compensation. The reviewer’s and respondent’s decisions abating that payment are quashed and the respondent must recalculate entitlements accordingly.
12 Dec 2012

Kaulima v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 402
Court

District Court

Both appeals were dismissed because no arguable question of law was identified that would justify High Court leave, the complained issues were not clearly questions of law but factual/merits matters, and a viable procedural remedy existed (ACC's offer to accept a late review of the 23 November 2010 decision) making High Court intervention unnecessary; ACR 57/12 was a collateral attack on the 24 March 2009 determination and had no apparent merit.