Judgment Of Compensation

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31237, 8 December 1966, Page 3

Judgment Of Compensation

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, December 7. Workers’ compensation case decisions and awards should be left to a judge alone, according to the findings of a special committee of the Law Society. Mr J. G. Leggat, of Christchurch, representing the Law Society, today told the final Wellington hearing this year for the Royal Commission into workers’ compensation that the council of the Law Society approved the committee’s report. The society advised there was also a considerable body of legal opinion that favoured keeping juries in workers’ compensation cases. Mr Leggat said advantages following abolition of the jury included greater con-

sistency In awards of damages, reduced volume of litigation, reduced time and costs of trial, the so-called “sympathy” approach of a jury would be eliminated, and appeals would be more realistic.

He said disadvantages of doing away with the jury system would include removal from the courts of the effect of the “social conscience,” loss of a jury’s realistic and close touch with issues of fact, and the ending of the jury’s appreciation of the monetary consequences of injury.

Amount Awarded The Commission chairman, Mr Justice Woodhouse, said he was prepared to say that in some cases he had taken part in he was rather surprised by the “rather cautious” money attitude of juries in compensation cases. His Honour was not saying that he would have given thousands more.

Mr Leggat said that in general terms the legal profession believed compensation awards by a single tribunal such as a judge, were by no means noticeably lower than by jury. The Law Society felt also that lump sum compensation payments should be paid in exceptional circumstances only. It recognised there was a considerable body of opinion which supported retaining lump sum payment for physical injury which did not result in loss of earning capacity. Mr Leggat said compensation should be paid only to the extent that a worker’s earnings were affected. Exceptional circumstances for lump sum payments would include the case of a worker injured in New Zealand but who later decided to leave the country permanently. The present 313-week limit-

ation of compensation payments was “unreal” and the Law Society believed the period of compensation should be limited only to the extent that a worker could be reasonably expected to remain at work.

Weekly compensation payments should be at a rate of 80 per cent of the injured worker’s take-home earnings over the previous year, with a maximum of £2O plus, dependant’s allowances, medical and hospital expenses and travelling allowance. In general, the Law Society members preferred to retain the present system of financing compensation schemes. The society was not enthusiastic about any proposals to establish a central State agency. Competition among insurers tended to improve services and there was no reason to introduce any other insurance system or paying agency, said Mr Leggat.