New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 103 interpretation

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2015

Young v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 90
Court

District Court

Section 103 must be applied by reference to the claimant's ability to engage in the generic form of his pre‑accident employment; on the medical evidence (notably Dr Walls) Mr Young could substantially engage in managerial duties despite restrictions on hands‑on tyre fitting, therefore he was not incapacitated for his pre‑injury employment from 20 June 2002 and ACC's decision to decline weekly compensation was correct.
6 Mar 2014

Revitt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 51
Court

District Court

Section 103(2) must be read as referring only to the employment in which the claimant was employed at the time of the personal injury; therefore off‑season or prior occupations in which the claimant was not employed at the injury date cannot be considered in determining incapacity, and no question of law capable of serious argument arose; leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 Dec 2012

Revitt v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 407
Court

District Court

Section 103(2) must be read as referring only to the employment the claimant was engaged in at the precise time of the personal injury; seasonal or off‑season work with a different employer is not included for incapacity assessment under s103(2), therefore the claimant was not incapacitated once certified fit for his slaughterman duties and weekly compensation properly ceased.