New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Section 105

  • 28 Apr 2016

    Ridd v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2016] NZACC 108
    Court
    District Court

    On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the long‑range neuropsychological and rehabilitation opinions (Ms Cunningham and Dr Seemann) over Dr Waite because Dr Waite did not adequately engage with vocational history and documentation; those opinions established that the appellant's traumatic brain injury produced cognitive compromise and fatigue that prevent him from sustaining or substantially completing suitable work, therefore under s105 the appellant is incapacitated and entitled to weekly compensation.

  • 16 Jul 2014

    Duffy v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2014] NZACC 168
    Court
    District Court

    The Court concluded the appropriate course is to consolidate and hear the two related appeals together; it recorded that the Clause 47 argument is no longer viable in light of Murray v ACC, leaving the question of potential earner status and assessment of potential loss (notably for ages 18–26 and possible future assessments) as the substantive issues to be resolved; accordingly the Court directed further submissions on Section 105 and listed the matters for joint hearing.

  • 7 Mar 2012

    Bolli v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 75
    Court
    District Court

    The court was bound by High Court and appellate authority (Vandy, Murray) that earnings‑based weekly compensation requires earner status at the time of injury and incapacity under the relevant provisions; a claimant who was not an earner at injury is limited to the potential earner regime under s105 and clause 47 and therefore the appellant is not entitled to weekly compensation for loss of earnings in this case; appeal dismissed.