ACC owes Mr Langdon nearly $50,000. This is weekly compensation from over 5 years ago...
They have not paid him any of this entitlement because WINZ cannot work out how much they want... The Amount of reimbursement has changed several times and varies by many thousands of Dollars.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The Issue which was taken to the court is set out below:
"The Issue in this matter is a matter of law regarding the payment of an entitlement to weekly compensation. The issue here is not the amount of entitlment (this matter has been addressed with previous legal action) it is the payment of that entitlement"
"Mr Langdon is seeking the court to determine as a matter of law whether ACC must pay the entitlement to Mr Langdon or whether ACC can continue indefinitely to withhold the payment"
The court did suggest that:
 For the record it should be noted that shortly before the hearing of this appeal the Technical Claims Manager of the Respondent had indicated that, providing WINZ could confirm that the reimbursement amount was unlikely to increase from that it had previously calculated, then the Corporation would retain that amount and pay the appellant the balance. This is sensible and probably should have been considered as an interim measure sooner.
 The court makes the observation that the proposal mooted by the respondent's Claims Manager in her memorandum of 27 June 2007, ought to be implemented without delay, if indeed it has not already been implemented, as the continued retention of the gross sum is clearly not in accord with the spirit of the Act.
The Point of law surrounds the meaning of S. 252 and repaying WINZ. It would appear that the matter of law as it was brought to the Court is sucessful in a round about way as the court supported the submission that it was against the spirit of the Act to withhold the full amount, and agreed that part of the amount be repaid. And in fact commented that it should have been paid some time ago.
As it is a Matter of Law, Mr Langdon is entitled to Appeal this decision to the High Court.
I hope that clarifies what the appeal was about and although the Appeal was dismissed, clearly the court supports the notion that the payment of at least the unchallenged part of the entitlement should be forthcoming.
Number of downloads: 19