[REX]

http://www.nzlii.org...CC/2016/56.html




Weal v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACC 56 (7 March 2016)

Last Updated: 11 March 2016



     
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT <a name="JUDGMENTLOCATION">WELLINGTON[2016] NZACC 56 ACR 552/13 & ACR 206/07
UNDER
THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001
IN THE MATTER OF
AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT PURSUANT TO SECTION 162 OF THE ACT ON A QUESTION OF LAW
BETWEEN
DOUGLAS WEALApplicant
AND
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATIONRespondent
On the papers
at Auckland
Date:
7 March 2016



DECISION OF JUDGE G M HARRISON


Andrew Beck for the Appellant
Meredith Connell for the Respondent





Background

[1] The applicant, Mr Weal, while in Fiji, was bitten by a mosquito and suffered dengue fever as a consequence. This occurred in late March/early April 2003.
[2] Mr Weal lodged a claim with the Corporation on 14 January 2004 after consulting a doctor in New Zealand.
[3] The claim was initially declined because the claim form completed by Mr Weal’s doctor stated that the former was bitten whilst on holiday in Fiji. Later, in December 2004, after the appellant clarified that his claim was work-related, cover was granted.
[4] The Corporation then embarked upon a process of obtaining information relevant to establishing what entitlement was due to Mr Weal, cover having been granted. This was a complicated process, with Mr Weal being involved in a number of companies and different activities. Having obtained as much information as it could, the respondent decided that the injury was not work-related and therefore cover was revoked on 11 October 2006 pursuant to s 65 of the Act.
[5] Mr Weal challenged this decision which was heard by Reviewer TM Gresson who delivered a 38 page decision on 17 December 2013 upholding the Corporation’s decision.
[6] Mr Weal appealed to this Court and in a decision of 31 July 2015 Judge AN MacLean dismissed the appeal. Mr Weal now seeks leave to appeal to the High Court against that decision.

The decision

[7] At para [17] the Judge said:

As both counsel agreed at the hearing before me the fundamental underlying issue is whether what happened could be a work-related personal injury.

[8] In the following paragraphs the Judge said:

[18] The relevant part of s 28(1)(a) reads:

A work-related personal injury is a personal injury that a person suffers while he ... is at any place for the purpose of his ... employment ...

[19] “Employment” under s 6 is defined as:

Work engaged in or carried out for the purposes of pecuniary gain or profit.

[20] Cover can apply for an injury, as here, outside of New Zealand under s 22 if the claimant is “ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he suffers the personal injury and would have had cover if it had been suffered in New Zealand.

[21] Thus the key underlying issue to be determined, which was very much within the scope of the relevant review carried out by a Mr Gresson ... is whether or not the Court can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence establishes a work-related personal injury.

[9] To determine that question the Judge was required to interpret the words “at any place” as they appear in s 28(1)(a).
[10] Having considered the evidence and several authorities relevant to the interpretation of “at any place” the Judge concluded:

[36] Accordingly I am of the view that on this vital preliminary jurisdictional point regardless of where the onus lies (in the context of the revocation) or the underlying substantive issue, there is no evidence confirming on the balance of probabilities “the place” at which the injury occurred and thus no ability to determine whether or not at that particular time, based on the principles outlined in the cases previously cited, the appellant was involved in employment-related work. Accordingly I agree with the conclusion of the Reviewer that the proposition that “the place” can simply be a country, i.e. Fiji, is not sustainable.

[11] That effectively disposed of the appeal but the Judge went on to consider whether the Reviewer’s decision as a whole was wrong and, particularly, whether there was reliance on inadmissible evidence and/or that the Reviewer’s findings cannot be justified on the evidence.
[12] At [44] the Judge said:

While it is accepted that as an appeal the Court is required to make its own assessment of the matter looking at the totality of the information available the reality is that exactly the same information that was available to the Reviewer has been made available to me and I find after careful review no reason to disagree in any material way with the process the Reviewer adopted and the conclusions he reached.

[13] He concluded at [45]:

So in summary my conclusion on the issues identified as applicable here are:

[a] Section 65 was correctly applied.

There is a sufficiency of evidence supporting the finding that the appellant was not working in Fiji primarily because there is insufficient evidence of a defined “place” other than Fiji in general in which the personal injury occurred.

[c] There was a substantial changing of versions from the appellant and internal inconsistencies to justify the factual conclusions that the Reviewer arrived at.

The application for leave

[14] The ratio of the Judge’s decision was that there was no evidence confirming the place at which the injury occurred, and thus no ability to determine whether or not at the time of the injury the applicant was involved in employment-related work.
[15] It is only if a point of law can be identified as arising on that issue that leave should be granted to appeal to the High Court. If no such point of law arises then it would be pointless granting leave on other issues even if points of law can be identified because an appeal could not succeed if the Judge’s fundamental determination was not overturned.
[16] The applicant defined his second question of law as “the Court’s interpretation of s 28 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 was incorrect”.
[17] The applicant submits essentially that the decision of the Judge that Fiji could not be a “place” for the purposes of s 28(1)(a) was a narrow interpretation, required to avoid the floodgates opening, whereas the legislation should be interpreted in a generous and unniggardly way.
[18] The respondent submits that the Judge was correct to find that a country as a whole cannot be a “place” for the purpose of employment under s 28, at least in the context of a working holiday. The respondent noted the Judge’s finding that it was not possible to point to the specific time, and therefore the specific “place” where the injury occurred. It said this supported the Court’s conclusion that “the place” for the purpose of employment could not simply be Fiji.
[19] Plainly that must be so. Section 28(1)(a) provides that “a work-related personal injury is a personal injury that a person suffers while he or she is at any place for the purposes of his or her employment ...”. (Underlining added)
[20] Thus, the relevance of “any place” is that the person sustaining the injury must identify the place at which it occurred to establish that it occurred in the course of his or her employment.
[21] There is simply no dispute in this case that Mr Weal was unable to establish the place at which he was bitten by the mosquito to establish that it occurred in the course of his employment.
[22] That being so, his claim for cover must fail and no question of law can arise because the place at which any injury was sustained is a question of fact only.
[23] In my view, therefore, Mr Weal’s claim for cover can never succeed because he is unable to establish the place at which he was engaged in employment when the injury occurred. That being so, the remaining suggested questions of law cannot assist the applicant and I deal with them briefly.
[24] The first point of law raised was that the Court did not apply correctly the law relating to s 65 of the Act. That permits the Corporation to decide that its original decision granting cover was made in error and, in reaching that conclusion, it is entitled to take into account material not available to it at the time of its original decision. ACC v Bartels <a title="View Case" class="autolink_findcases_inserted" href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2006/939.html">[2006] NZHC 939; [2006] NZAR 680. For the Corporation to decide that its original decision was wrong is a question of fact. Here, after receiving further information from Mr Weal when considering the extent of his entitlement, the Corporation received information from him which led it to revoke its original decision granting cover. That is solely a question of fact and no issue of law arises.
[25] The next posed question of law was that the Court failed to exclude inadmissible evidence and reached conclusions that relied on that evidence. It also excluded evidence without a proper basis for doing so. This suggested point of law relates to the finding that Mr Weal was not engaged in employment at the time of his injury, he being there for personal and recreational purposes as well as work-related matters.
[26] Once again, this is a question of fact but is relevant only to whether he was engaged in work-related activity at the time of the injury and does not assist in establishing the place at which the injury occurred.
[27] Even if a point of law arises on this question, and I do not accept that it does, it could not succeed for the reasons given.
[28] The Reviewer declined to award the costs of the hearing before him to the applicant which the Judge confirmed as correct. Section 148(2)( of the Act gives the Reviewer a discretion to award costs if he is of the view that the review was reasonably brought. The Reviewer considered that in the light of adverse credibility findings against Mr Weal that it had not been reasonably brought and therefore costs should not be awarded.
[29] It was plainly open to the Judge to accept the discretionary decision of the Reviewer that Mr Weal had not acted reasonably in seeking his review. No submission is made that the Reviewer took into account irrelevant material or failed to take into account relevant material in reaching his decision, and no point of law arises in that regard.
[30] The final question concerned delay in providing entitlements to Mr Weal, which arises out of the second appeal before the Judge, but, as he noted, that issue simply does not arise where the respondent’s decision declining cover is confirmed.

[b]Conclusion

[31] For the foregoing reasons the applicant for leave to appeal to the High Court is dismissed.

G M Harrison
District Court Judge

[Alan Thomas]

this is more complicated than what is being indicated in the judgement to the extent that the judgement misrepresents the facts.

The claim was lodged and as ACC did not make a decision within the timeline criteria described in legislation the decision-making process was automated in the claimant's favour on behalf of the ACC excluding ACC from the decision-making process.

The ACC then embarked upon a fraud investigation in order to defeat the automated decision-making process described in legislation.
[4] The Corporation then embarked upon a process of obtaining information relevant to establishing what entitlement was due to Mr Weal, cover having been granted. This was a complicated process, with Mr Weal being involved in a number of companies and different activities. Having obtained as much information as it could, the respondent decided that the injury was not work-related and therefore cover was revoked on 11 October 2006 pursuant to s 65 of the Act.

The issue centred around whether a person could register a company and claim to be working because they were a director. This situation became important as the ACC decision to cancel my claim and prosecuted for fraud was because I was a director whereby the ACC concluded that that meant I was working. That being the case this claimant was therefore working because he was a director and therefore as she was in Fiji conducting business as well as enjoying a holiday he would be covered. The evidence of his working was conclusive in as much as there was documented evidence while the ACC private investigators reach their conclusions by way of an inference. There are many parallels to my own case in this what whereby the claimant tried to rely upon the ACC convicting me to justify his position with the ACC.

My position on this matter of course is that being a director does not in itself mean that a person has a job title and is working as director means that a person has accepted responsibility for a company only which is a function of accepting food issue duty only and certainly does not mean carrying out activities for purposes of earning and neither does it establish capacity to earn. Therefore I reach the conclusion that the proper approach was to be looking at work task activities being undertaken in the name of a New Zealand entity for the purposes of generating earnings for that New Zealand entity whether it be a separate company or in a self-employed capacity. Therefore the issue is the evidence of the actual work tasks in Fiji.

It would seem to me that both the claimant, the ACC and the court system have misdirected themselves rather seriously. in other words in the above judgement it was not the business of the court to determine the facts but only the point of law as an automated decision had taken place concerning the point of fact of the matter in order to grant cover. ACC are not permitted in law to remake that decision and therefore it follows that neither is the reviewer nor the judge entitled to remake the decisions concerning fact which it does seems they have done. Therefore the application for appeal is quite justified and therefore it would seem that this matter should go before the Court of Appeal because the district court application for an appeal to the High Court is wrong.

However this only becomes an issue for purposes of the ACC to accept the claim for cover. As the ACC have been required to submit to the automated legislated decision to accept cover on the ACC's behalf then the ACC may not challenge that decision to accept the cover but only to address the issue of the quantum of entitlements. For example what was the level of earnings for the short-term if the injury incapacity was only for a short term or what was the traditional earnings for the previous 12 months in the event that is as a long-term incapacity. As this case was a long-term incapacity the evidence of the capacity to earn as for the preceding 12 months of which there has been an abundance of evidence. In this case I understand that the ACC have focused their attention only on the earnings capacity in Fiji of which there was no earnings capacity as no earnings were were carried out but only work carried out for the purposes of earnings in the longer term which is typical of persons on business seeking to develop additional business such as carrying out research for producing a business plan.

The above judgement seems to be quite obsessive about whether or not this claimant was actually working and had then gone on to focus their attention on traditional types of employment, such as paragraph 23, when this claimants activities were nothing of the sort but rather the swelling was engaged in explorative work for the purposes of learning in the longer term on his own account for his own company which means the court has simply misunderstood or has been defined of the real nature of the facts. this level of incompetence at district court level is not uncommon as demonstrated in paragraph 24 of which it is clearly wrong in law. with regards to the quantum of work in Fiji in order to claim ACC the claimant would only need to have carried out one single task to be working in that country which of course is quite minimal to the same extent that a mosquito bite is also quite minimal. It was quite in order for the claimant to have an acceptable claim if they were predominantly working in Fiji and only minimally working as this is the way the legislation works. To reinforce this line of thought New Zealanders pay vast quantities of hard earned funds into the ACC as levies or premiums and that the claimant takes a holiday in Fiji and carries out work in Fiji terminal extent than they are covered because that is the nature of the policy. It is not for the ACC or a judge to manipulate what the actual legislation stipulates.

My advise to this claimant was that he should have been completely open with the ACC and not try to manipulate the information. For example he was on his honeymoon while also carrying out research for his business without telling is new bride who thought he was devoting his time entirely toward her. When people habitually engage in manipulation of the facts to suit their own purposes as and when they like they may be perfectly entitled to so and likewise when making a claim thinking he could have the claim accepted based entirely upon being a director of a company in reliance upon the ACC obtaining conviction against myself and in reliance of the working principles of the legislation the ACC had claimed to be in force in as much as a person registered as a director of a company is working without disclosing to the ACC any additional information such is the nature of his activities and what else you are doing in Fiji for fear that they may feel that his activities were insufficient to make a claim but in such circumstances as these would seem that he has made a rod for his own back. he should have openly declared the individual work task activities that were designed for the generation of earnings in his capacity as someone who has worked base in New Zealand.

As this issue has arisen on numerous occasions previously with other claimants and this claimant has clearly had his thinking misrepresented by the ACC when you alive upon the ACC obtaining a criminal conviction on the basis that being a director alone gave justification for the ACC to cancel a claim for cover which is of course quid pro quo or what is good for the goose is good for the gander. On that point alone this matter should be decided as a matter of law as either the ACC are correct in this case and wrong in my own or vice versa.

As this claimant has routinely spoke of his fantasies of revenge and intolerance to anyone making mistakes that harm him that does not give them cause to imagine I think the way that he thinks and particularly does not give them grounds to make the ridiculous claim that I was planning to blow up the ACC office that were investigating him for this fraud that the ACC have effectively alleged by cancelling this fellow's claim. Likewise it is quite bizarre that the ACC should be prosecuting me but not prosecuting him when the legal principles have parallel elements.

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 07 June 2016 - 06:34 PM, said:

Likewise it is quite bizarre that the ACC should be prosecuting me but not prosecuting him when the legal principles have parallel elements.

Bollocks


David

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 08 June 2016 - 10:34 AM, said:

Bollocks


David

Huh?
is there something you do not understand?

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 08 June 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

Huh?
is there something you do not understand?

Yep= Not your version of the issue

Weals is far better that he described that he was bitten on de ass
Which raises the very relevant question as to why did he have a bare ass whilst being a director
Was he then the Naked Chef whilst engaging in preparation of the salad [ un] dressing for the Main Course

[Alan Thomas]

Just keep to the facts and you will see what has happened in this case

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 08 June 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Just keep to the facts and you will see what has happened in this case

HE GOT BITTEN
He claimed for any acc entitlements via the acc system available.
He was given an initial cover - then as shown -he did not fall under any aspects of the acc system that gave him a possible entitlement.



And it was you Thomas that did the taking of $$$$ from ACC,
To do so -You Used documents for a pecuniary gain >>from the ACC, FOR A LONG TIME
And found in a Court of Law >>GUILTY of doing that .


David

[REX]

David Butler, on 08 June 2016 - 06:38 PM, said:

HE GOT BITTEN
He claimed for any acc entitlements via the acc system available.
He was given an initial cover - then as shown -he did not fall under any aspects of the acc system that gave him a possible entitlement.



And it was you Thomas that did the taking of $ from ACC,
To do so -You Used documents for a pecuniary gain >>from the ACC, FOR A LONG TIME
And found in a Court of Law >>GUILTY of doing that .


David

It looks like Weal has been trying to suck something out of the Acc system for YEARS and YEARS

He even tried being a high value information conduit/NARK for the Acc.

I would say his actions are those of a desperate man, it seems he was trying to copy Tomcat/Kenneath Miller by being a nark and getting slid cars etc


These sort of people who are Narks for the system are Monsters because they often feed corruption and become the scapegoats without knowing, SO desperate that they would probably be prepared to even lie under oath.

One thing I have noticed whist being involved with Acc and in courts, is when the judge sums up in the decisions very vaguely and leave no point of law to appeal, = Something's probably going on behind the curtain.



Just for an example:

The government complaints depts, (IE.. OMBUDSMENS OFFICE, lawyers call it "the greater good" or for the sake of national security.. = a lot of the time this means hide corruption.

When there's corruption gone on in Acc cases and you show the Ombudsman ,,, and you seek the help of the ombudsmen's office to sort things out... YOU will be denied the notes of the ombudsman on No specific grounds apart from according to the ombudsmen's ACT he can withhold his dealings from the public.. = end of your plite for justice,,

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 08 June 2016 - 06:38 PM, said:

HE GOT BITTEN
He claimed for any acc entitlements via the acc system available.
He was given an initial cover - then as shown -he did not fall under any aspects of the acc system that gave him a possible entitlement.



And it was you Thomas that did the taking of $$ from ACC,
To do so -You Used documents for a pecuniary gain >>from the ACC, FOR A LONG TIME
And found in a Court of Law >>GUILTY of doing that .


David

That is not what is the facts of this case is show, but rather only the ACC ill-conceived viewpoint based on a misconception of the facts. Douglas weal did carry out work task activity while in Fiji, be it comparatively minor activity. The quantum of activity is irrelevant under law and as such ACC do not possess any information to revoke the existing decision to grant cover.

The facts in my case have no relevant bearing on this case.
You have attended to distinguish the difference between his case and my case by my case being accepted payments and entitlements being made. In my case the ACC had a succession of medical documents and medical certificate describing incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation. ACC have cancelled my claim without any opposing information of any description.

The only common ground between these two cases is that the ACC are making decisions based on opposite viewpoint is generated by themselves of which one of the cases should have been accepted based on their claims of fact. To deny liability to both cases demonstrates insurance fraud by the ACC themselves.

[Alan Thomas]

REX, on 08 June 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

It looks like Weal has been trying to suck something out of the Acc system for YEARS and YEARS

He even tried being a high value information conduit/NARK for the Acc.

I would say his actions are those of a desperate man, it seems he was trying to copy Tomcat/Kenneath Miller by being a nark and getting slid cars etc


These sort of people who are Narks for the system are Monsters because they often feed corruption and become the scapegoats without knowing, SO desperate that they would probably be prepared to even lie under oath.

One thing I have noticed whist being involved with Acc and in courts, is when the judge sums up in the decisions very vaguely and leave no point of law to appeal, = Something's probably going on behind the curtain.



Just for an example:

The government complaints depts, (IE.. OMBUDSMENS OFFICE, lawyers call it "the greater good" or for the sake of national security.. = a lot of the time this means hide corruption.

When there's corruption gone on in Acc cases and you show the Ombudsman ,,, and you seek the help of the ombudsmen's office to sort things out... YOU will be denied the notes of the ombudsman on No specific grounds apart from according to the ombudsmen's ACT he can withhold his dealings from the public.. = end of your plite for justice,,

Rex while I agree with your appraisal of the overall situation I would add two points.

Douglas weal certainly does seem to have gone to all kinds of lengths to extract money from the ACC. Undoubtedly this is because his claim is actually valid and he should be returning a return on his ACC levies investments over the years in the form of earnings compensation and other under the assistance. sadly because he is such a manipulative fellow who acts in such an appalling way ACC staff had made a decision against him based on this behaviour pattern rather than the actual facts of the matter. He has clearly withheld information from the ACC that he has thought might enable the ACC to make an opposing decision and also not to make available any information that may lead to other difficulties with his dealings with other persons at as business background as he obviously would not want to provide information again access for those people to be suing him. this is understandable as ACC are known to act quite vindictively. offering to nark on others as you put it is one thing but to get false stories in order to frighten the ACC into complying with as will is quite another. I must point out that a nark is someone who informs upon a person who is engaged in known criminal activities which of course the law actually requires of us all and is only socially unacceptable to those of a criminal mind set.

With your observations about the judicial system I have personally experienced what you have described. However I do not think that this would be the end of the road as there are mechanisms of protection against the applicant to the court against this sort of thing which includes not just appeal but more importantly judicial review for when judges breached their duty when they failed to maintain the purity of law and make expedient decisions in accordance with the social belief systems. Even if their social belief systems are in the majority the legal code is not subject to a democratic approach as perceived by some judges but rather once a law has been made by Parliament it is a firmly next entity unable to be changed except by Parliament and may not be bypassed by a judge. Judicial review bring such judges into line.

[not their victim]

ALL LIARS GET FOUND OUT EVENTUALLY.....

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 09 June 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

That is not what is the facts of this case is show, but rather only the ACC ill-conceived viewpoint based on a misconception of the facts. Douglas weal did carry out work task activity while in Fiji, be it comparatively minor activity. The quantum of activity is irrelevant under law and as such ACC do not possess any information to revoke the existing decision to grant cover.

The facts in my case have no relevant bearing on this case.
You have attended to distinguish the difference between his case and my case by my case being accepted payments and entitlements being made. In my case the ACC had a succession of medical documents and medical certificate describing incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation. ACC have cancelled my claim without any opposing information of any description.

The only common ground between these two cases is that the ACC are making decisions based on opposite viewpoint is generated by themselves of which one of the cases should have been accepted based on their claims of fact. To deny liability to both cases demonstrates insurance fraud by the ACC themselves.

Utter BULLSHIT Thomas
YOUR BOTH LIARS and caught out

Great decisions by the ACC and the courts in my opinion re both of you.

Dave

[Alan Thomas]

not their victim, on 14 June 2016 - 09:05 PM, said:

ALL LIARS GET FOUND OUT EVENTUALLY.....

Does this mean that Douglas weal's lie to the court claiming I planned to blow up the ACC office investigating for fraud will be found out eventually?

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 15 June 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

Utter BULLSHIT Thomas
YOUR BOTH LIARS and caught out

Great decisions by the ACC and the courts in my opinion re both of you.

Dave

You clearly don't know what you are talking about on any of these issues while also having absolutely no understanding of the law.

There is no dispute that Douglas weal suffered a claimable injury while in Fiji with the only issue at hand is whether or not he carried out any work at all in relation to his normal line of business. there is documented evidence that he did carry out such work in Fiji.
I have pleaded not guilty to his accusation that plan was being made to blow up those ACC staff investigating him for fraud.

Despite being a scoundrel and a scallywag of the most despicable sought the ACC insurance liability exists entirely dependent upon the criteria with the result being that he has become very upset and wish to hurt the ACC in any way he could. He simply went the wrong way about addressing his claim and did not have proper legal counsel that familiarised themselves adequately with ACC legislation.

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 15 June 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

Does this mean that Douglas weal's lie to the court claiming I planned to blow up the ACC office investigating for fraud will be found out eventually?

Eventually WHY = You have had eight years to fully examine that , , and >could have< >> BUT YOU NEVER<< attempted to sort that out / outside of . or within the trial of the Bomb Plot where you were found Guilty.
Douglas Weal's evidence was accepted as factual and sufficient for the Judge to place his verdict apon you so he cant have lied re the Bomb Plot you hatched up to use against / and to do grievous bodily harm to the ACC, many ACC Staff . and many members of the Public including the patsy associate of yours you had lined up to set the plan off / in motion.

David.

[not their victim]

How in hell would I know WTF Douglas Weal was up to

I hadn't joined the forum until after the police/acc/bombing shenanigans was already under due process....

No idea what planet you, Rex, Dermot etc all on...

I have the one moniker and always have...
anyone who states differently is a consumate liar.

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 15 June 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

Eventually WHY = You have had eight years to fully examine that , , and >could have< >> BUT YOU NEVER<< attempted to sort that out / outside of . or within the trial of the Bomb Plot where you were found Guilty.
Douglas Weal's evidence was accepted as factual and sufficient for the Judge to place his verdict apon you so he cant have lied re the Bomb Plot you hatched up to use against / and to do grievous bodily harm to the ACC, many ACC Staff . and many members of the Public including the patsy associate of yours you had lined up to set the plan off / in motion.

David.

The police had both your name and Fran's name one other as the potential so-called Patsy

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 15 June 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

You clearly don't know what you are talking about on any of these issues while also having absolutely no understanding of the law.

There is no dispute that Douglas weal suffered a claimable injury while in Fiji with the only issue at hand is whether or not he carried out any work at all in relation to his normal line of business. there is documented evidence that he did carry out such work in Fiji.
I have pleaded not guilty to his accusation that plan was being made to blow up those ACC staff investigating him for fraud.

Despite being a scoundrel and a scallywag of the most despicable sought the ACC insurance liability exists entirely dependent upon the criteria with the result being that he has become very upset and wish to hurt the ACC in any way he could. He simply went the wrong way about addressing his claim and did not have proper legal counsel that familiarised themselves adequately with ACC legislation.

Bollocks
YOU ALWAYS rant on about what you say you know about what others know
You CANT KNOW so You know f all about what i know /'have in hand re that issue Thomas
YOUR FULL OF CRAP AND ITs YOU THAT DONT UNDERSTAND THE LAW-Very obvious from your many losing appearances in court where you cant escape serious charges with your so called knowledge and bullshit
Weals documented evidence got him a long way didn't it ?.

Weal couldnt provide what was needed as it dropped him in the crap and legally hes was tied up re that particular issue =which suited him immensely.
Then as you see -Just like you thinking everyone else is of inferior quality / intelligence than you-he played the CON-MAN = AND LOST.
End of story Thommo.



David,

[Alan Thomas]

not their victim, on 15 June 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

How in hell would I know WTF Douglas Weal was up to

I hadn't joined the forum until after the police/acc/bombing shenanigans was already under due process....

No idea what planet you, Rex, Dermot etc all on...

I have the one moniker and always have...
anyone who states differently is a consumate liar.

If you make claims of rational and cascading logic you must be able to stand up to such thinking processes. If you are not able to follow this line of reasoning you are not entitled to participate in this discussion.

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 15 June 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

Bollocks
YOU ALWAYS rant on about what you say you know about what others know
You CANT KNOW so You know f all about what i know /'have in hand re that issue Thomas
YOUR FULL OF CRAP AND ITs YOU THAT DONT UNDERSTAND THE LAW-Very obvious from your many losing appearances in court where you cant escape serious charges with your so called knowledge and bullshit
Weals documented evidence got him a long way didn't it ?.

Weal couldnt provide what was needed as it dropped him in the crap and legally hes was tied up re that particular issue =which suited him immensely.
Then as you see -Just like you thinking everyone else if of inferior quality imtelligence he played the CON-MAN = AND LOST.
End of story Thommo.

Dave


David,

The only reason that Douglas Weal contacted me was for my opinion about his case. He provided me with a copy of all of his documents for that opinion.

As I had first-hand information to hand being the documents relating to his claim I'm able to state the facts as certainties.

The problem is the ACC did not come into the possession of the documents I was given and one can only wonder why and what else was a foot. I could guess but I'm not in the habit of making guesses.

I am a plain person only dealing with plain facts and do not become embroiled in the jiggery-pokery that you speak of which is the reason why I was set upon by you and your friends.