ACCforum: Brightwell V Acc 1985 - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Brightwell V Acc 1985 1972 act s 15(2)(i)

#1 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 October 2005 - 08:16 PM

Court of Appeal [1985]


Brightwell v Accident Compensation Corporation
Court of Appeal Wellington
18, 19 September 1984; 7 January 1985
Cooke, Richardson and McMullin JJ


Practice and procedure —Production of documents for inspection —Claim of public interest immunity for documents of the Accident Compensation Corporation — In judicial review proceedings applicant challenged validity of Corporation's recommendations to the Minister under s I5(2)(i) of the Accident Compensation Act 1972 that there be no change to the maximum amounts which could be paid under s 119 and s 120 —Ministerial certificate claiming immunity stated that the disputed documents contained reasons for the Corporation's recommendations or were internal memoranda of the Corporation relating to the reasons for such recommendations— Whether the claim of public interest immunity justified withholding the documents from production —Code of Civil Procedure, R 163.


In each financial year the Corporation was required, by s 15(2)(i) of the 1972 Act, to review and make recommendations to the Minister of Labour regarding the adjustments (if any) that should be made in relation to the maximum amounts of compensation which might be paid under ss 119 and 120. Section 15(5) stated that, in making its recommendations, the Corporation "shall have regard to the movement in earnings by earners who have cover under the earners' scheme that has occurred since the date of the passing of this Act, past relevant adjustments, and all other data, indices, and matters which it considers relevant". Section 178 directed that these recommendations were to be set out in the Corporation's annual report; and a copy of the report was to be laid before Parliament. The annual reports for the years 1976 to 1982 showed that in each of those years the Corporation had made a nil recommendation under ss 119 and 120

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 31 October 2005 - 09:16 PM

We all know why there was no increase in the years between 1976 and 1982.

in 1976 this is when the employee's started to question why the compensation cost were rising quicker than in private insurance. we know from history that the ACC didn't place any weight on Vocational Rehabilitation and the Act was structored in such a way that premanent compensation could be given after Vocational Rehabilitation was refused by the corporation (commission in those days). this resulted in many that were injured received full compensation until retirement and did there own rehabilitation to give them a wage equal to that of compensation.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users