New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reinstatement of compensation

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2013

Sutherland v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 217
Court

District Court

The court found the Sales Assistant (Art Supplies, Framing & Glazing) work-type carries a realistic possibility of exposure to irritant chemicals; the appellant's covered RADS precludes work with any such exposure; medical evidence confirmed the risk; therefore the respondent's finding of vocational independence for that work-type was unsustainable and must be reversed, with reinstatement of weekly compensation and costs to the appellant.
9 May 2013

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION V MILLER COA CA311/2012

Citation

COA CA311/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held Q(a) yes and Q(b) no: it is not automatic that interest runs from the date compensation was suspended merely because payments were previously made; whether interest runs depends on when the Corporation first had 'all information necessary' (medical, financial and other) to calculate the payment. Kearney's principle that the Corporation cannot benefit from its own omission stands, but that does not displace the statutory test. The matter raises factual questions about when the Corporation received and had opportunity to assess necessary information and is remitted to the High Co…
11 Oct 2004

Schoonderwoerd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 326
Court

District Court

Section 72 (as read with section 87 Judicature Act 1908) authorizes payment of simple interest only on late payments of weekly compensation; there is no statutory power to award compound interest or interest on review costs, and interest on the reinstated arrears runs from one month after the Corporation had received all information necessary to calculate the payment (which occurred after Judge Middleton's decision), therefore the respondent's calculations and payments were correct.
21 Jul 2003

Smitheram v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 158
Court

District Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Appellant’s ongoing incapacity remained significantly caused by the January 1996 specific injury (bicipital tendonitis) and was not shown to be caused wholly or substantially by degenerative changes; therefore the Respondent’s decision of 25 June 1999 to suspend weekly compensation was incorrect and must be set aside and compensation reinstated from June 1999.
27 Jul 1998

Hauwai v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 166
Court

District Court

The appellant did not unreasonably fail to comply with the rehabilitation plan: her decision to take lighter employment was supported by her treating doctor's advice and the respondent failed to engage in renegotiation of the plan; accordingly the respondent's and review officer's decisions to cease payments under s.73 are revoked and compensation is reinstated from 20 June 1997 with make-up pay for the specified period.

New Zealand Case Law

Sutherland v Accident Compensation Corporation

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION V MILLER COA CA311/2012

Schoonderwoerd v Accident Compensation Corporation

Smitheram v Accident Compensation Corporation

Hauwai v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation