Accident Compensation Corporation v Samuela - [2025] NZHC 1935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-130

[2025] NZHC 1935

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: 8 July 2025

Appearances:

C J Hlavac for the appellant

H Peart and E Manga for the respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2025 at 2.00 pm 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 1935 [15 July 2025]

[1] The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) appeals against a decision of Judge P R Spiller in the District Court at Wellington dated 22 April 2024 concerning Mr Samuela’s entitlement to weekly compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act).1

[2] Mr Samuela was unable to work due to an injury. ACC did not agree to pay him weekly compensation for the period he was unable to work. Mr Samuela was forced to take annual leave and sick leave when he would not otherwise have done so.

[3] A review established that ACC was required to pay him weekly compensation. In calculating the amount of the weekly compensation, ACC reduced the payments to him by the amount of the leave payments he had received from his employer.

[4] The issue in the case is whether ACC was right to reduce Mr Samuela’s weekly compensation payments by the amount of the leave payments.

[5] The reduction of weekly compensation payments is governed by cls 49 to 51 of Schedule 1 to the Act. It is referred to in these provisions as “abatement”. Whether ACC was correct to abate Mr Samuela’s weekly compensation turns on the meaning of the word “earnings” in cl 51(2).

Abatement of Mr Samuela’s weekly compensation

[6] In May 2021, Mr Samuela injured his right shoulder while playing rugby. ACC granted cover for a shoulder sprain.

[7] Mr Samuela’s symptoms did not resolve and he was subsequently diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear. In September 2021, he slipped at work and aggravated his injury. He became unable to work and made a request to ACC for weekly compensation. But in October 2021, ACC advised that it was declining to extend cover for the rotator cuff tear. Consequently, it also declined to pay him weekly

1 Samuela v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 70.

compensation on the basis that his inability to work was the result of the rotator cuff tear and not the shoulder sprain.

[8] Because Mr Samuela was unable to work, he arranged with his employer, Le Va, to use his accrued annual leave and sick leave to cover his absence from work in the period between 28 September and 26 October 2021.…

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 1935
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) appealed against a District Court decision that held it was not entitled to reduce Mr Samuela's weekly compensation by leave payments he received from his employer. The appeal centred on whether leave payments made during the claimant's employment should be considered "earnings" for the purposes of calculating weekly compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The District Court had held that the leave payments should not be included in the definition of "earnings," allowing Mr Samuela to avoid abatement of his weekly compensation. However, the High Court found that the correct interpretation of the Act required the leave payments to be included in the definition of "earnings," thereby permitting ACC to abate the weekly compensation.

The Court considered two interpretations of the term "earnings" in clause 51 of Schedule 1 to the Act. The first interpretation held that the definition of "earnings" in section 6 of the Act, as modified by clause 49, should apply. This interpretation includes leave payments made during employment. The second interpretation argued that only the definition in clause 49 should apply, excluding leave payments made during employment. The Court found that the first interpretation was correct as clause 49, being a partial definition, could not stand alone and was intended to supplement the full definition in section 6. Despite acknowledging the unfairness experienced by Mr Samuela, the Court concluded that the statutory interpretation did not allow for exclusion of leave payments made during employment from the definition of "earnings." Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and upheld ACC's entitlement to abate Mr Samuela's weekly compensation by the leave payments he received.

Orders