Accident Compensation Corporation v Samuela - [2025] NZHC 2415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-130

[2025] NZHC 2415

UNDER The Accident Compensation Act 2001

IN THE MATTER OF

An appeal of a decision of the District Court under s 162 of the Act

BETWEEN

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Appellant

AND

SONNY SAMUELA

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

C J Hlavac for the appellant H Peart the respondent

Judgment:

25 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

[Application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 August 2025 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Young Hunter Lawyers, Christchurch Schmidt & Peart Law, Auckland

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION v SAMUELA [2025] NZHC 2415 [25 August 2025]

[1] In a judgment dated 15 July 2025, I allowed an appeal by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) against a District Court decision.1 I held that ACC was entitled to abate Mr Samuela’s weekly compensation payments by the amount of leave payments he received during the period he was unable to work but still employed.2

[2]Mr Samuela seeks leave to appeal my decision to the Court of Appeal.

Background

[3] The background to this proceeding is set out in my judgment allowing the appeal.3

[4] In short, Mr Samuela was unable to work due to an injury. ACC initially refused to pay him weekly compensation for the period he was unable to work, and he was forced to take annual leave and sick leave. A subsequent review established that ACC was required to pay him weekly compensation. In calculating the amount of the weekly compensation, ACC reduced the payments to Mr Samuela by the amount of the leave payments he had received from his employer.

[5] Leave payments can be made during employment (when it is taken) or on termination of employment (when it is “paid out”). The leave payments received by Mr Samuela were made during employment.

[6] The key issue was whether ACC was right, as a matter of law, to abate Mr Samuela’s weekly compensation payments by the amount of the leave payments he received.4 This turned on the definition of “earnings” in cl 51 of sch 1 to the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act).

1 Accident Compensation Corporation v Samuela [2025] NZHC 1935.
2 At [58].
3 At [2]–[13].
4 At [4].

[7] There are two definitions provisions in the Act that are relevant in this context. First, there is the general definition of “earnings” in s 6 of the Act. This definition includes leave payments made during employment.5

[8] Second, there is the definition of “earnings” in cl 49 of sch 1 to the Act. This definition, in cl 49(3), expressly includes leave payments made on termination of employment but is silent about leave payments made during employment.

[9] There is no doubt that cl 49 applies to cl 51. The question is whether, and to what extent, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Accident Compensation Corporation v Samuela and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2415
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Sonny Samuela sought leave to appeal a decision of Blanchard J, who allowed an appeal by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) against a District Court decision. The core issue in the appeal was whether ACC was entitled to abate Mr Samuela's weekly compensation payments by the amount of leave payments he received during the period he was unable to work but still employed. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the term "earnings" as defined in the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Blanchard J examined two possible interpretations of the definition of "earnings" in cl 51 of sch 1 to the Act, concluding that the correct interpretation was the one that included the definition in s 6 of the Act as modified by cl 49. This interpretation meant that ACC was right to abate Mr Samuela’s weekly compensation payments by the amount of the leave payments he received.

Blanchard J held that the proposed appeal raised an issue of sufficient importance but was not capable of serious argument. Mr Samuela's argument centred on how cl 49 modifies the general definition of "earnings" in s 6 rather than whether the s 6 definition applies at all. However, Blanchard J found that Mr Samuela's position did not advance matters, as it did not explain how the resulting definition of "earnings" could exclude leave payments made during employment, given that the definition in s 6 includes such payments, and cl 49 is silent about them. Therefore, Blanchard J declined Mr Samuela's application for leave to appeal. No order was made as to costs because ACC did not oppose the application.

Orders