New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employee versus self-employed status

Legal area

Court

16 May 2003

White v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 93
Court

District Court

The $80 payment for peer‑tutoring at Whitireia was a token self‑employment receipt, not employment earnings; it ceased before incapacity and meets clause 36(3)(c), thereby activating clause 36(5). Exercising the clause 36(5) discretion consistently with legislative purpose, the correct divisor is 14 (the weeks actually worked for Radfords), so weekly compensation is calculated on Radfords earnings divided by 14 weeks.
15 Apr 2003

Rowe v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 65
Court

District Court

Appellant had no 'earnings as an employee' in the 12 months prior to his incapacity and drawings do not constitute earnings under the Act; section 43 does not apply because he was neither an employee with earnings nor a qualifying self-employed person, therefore he is not entitled to weekly compensation and the respondent's decision and resulting debt are upheld.
18 Dec 2000

Beatty v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 340
Court

District Court

Under Schedule 1 clauses 10 and 11 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 only earnings that qualify as 'earnings as an employee' (source deduction payments) can be aggregated for calculating weekly compensation for a non-permanent employee; self-employed earnings are excluded even if earned within the 52-week period and the divisor remains 52, therefore the insurer's calculation excluding Exmac income was correct.

New Zealand Case Law

White v Accident Compensation Corporation

Rowe v Accident Compensation Corporation

Beatty v Accident Compensation Corporation