11 Jul 2018
The Court held ACC's decision of 11 August 2015 falls within s391(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, meaning the appeal must be determined under the Accident Compensation Act 1982 and therefore before the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority rather than the District Court.
13 Jul 2001
The court held that assessment of relevant earnings must be based on actual tax-returned figures rather than notional reconstructions; the respondent correctly used the appellant's IR12/tax-return figure (assessed at $4,600 for 1978) and the Reviewer's decision was affirmed; interest was not payable because interest accrual is limited to amounts accruing after 1 July 1992 and the WINZ excess benefit payments equated to weekly earnings so there was no entitlement to interest.
18 Sept 2000
The correspondence in August–September 1999 merely confirmed the original earnings assessment and did not revoke, revise or substitute the original decision; therefore it was not a new 'decision' within the meaning of the Act and was not capable of review, so the Review Officer correctly declined jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Jun 1998
Leave to bring the review out of time was declined because, on the appellant's work history (short Marsden Point employment followed by a substantial gap then 10.2 weeks at Tapps), the appropriate and fair assessment of relevant earnings at the time of the accident reasonably excluded Marsden Point income and relied on Tapps earnings alone; therefore the merits did not justify granting leave despite earlier delays and evidence provided.
6 Mar 1998
The appellant was properly a deemed employee under s.2(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 and the respondent's reliance on absence of tax returns was not a bar to entitlement; medical evidence available established ongoing incapacity traceable to the 8 September 1989 accident so the appellant is entitled to earnings related compensation from that date and the respondent must assess relevant earnings under the 1982 Act.
7 May 1997
The Court accepted the respondent's interpretation of the Earnings Definitions Regulations and Income Tax provisions: the redundancy and non‑taxable gratuity payments were excluded from "earnings as an employee" either because they fell within the regulatory exclusion for redundancy payments or because they were not source deduction payments; therefore the respondent's assessment of the appellant's relevant earnings and weekly compensation was correct.