30 Apr 1999
Mauga v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 105
- Court
- District Court
Because the appellant was on unpaid maternity leave and was not engaged in paid work immediately before the commencement of incapacity, she was not an "earner" under s.3 and therefore not entitled to compensation under ss.39 or 40; s.44 did not apply; the court followed Vasquez and applied a strict ordinary‑meaning construction of the statutory definitions.