COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20979, 16 September 1931, Page 8

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

There have been many protests against the increasing delay in the settlement of claims under the Workers' Compensation Act, owing to the inability of the Arbitration Court to deal promptly with the cases as they arise. The president of the Court himself declared last week that "something ought to be done to overcome what has really become a scandal in the administration of justice." Some of the consequences of delay have been described in the current issue of the Law Journal, extracts from which are published to-day. Generally, the fact that parties to compensation claims have to wait months for decisions is evidence that the existing system is seriously deficient. Dilatory administration of justice inevitably produces a crop of anomalies and injuries, consequences that have been recorded and deplored by all authoritative observers. The uncertainty of obtaining a hearing in the Court in some circumstances compels injured workers to accept, a settlement less generous than the tribunal might award ; in others, and this appears to be the most serious effect, the disability of the claimant and the cost of compensation are aggravated by waiting for the Court's judgment. Neither employers nor workers can afford the waste of time, money and efficiency attributable to what Dr. Macky calls litigation neurosis, and it becomes a question whether delay in instituting reform is not false economy. A Royal Commission last year recommended the constitution of a separate compensation court, comprising a judge and two lay assessors; other suggestions have been made that a judge alone or with expert assessors should deal with compensation cases; or that permanent- medical boards in each centre should examine all cases immediately, any legal questions being referred to the present Court. On the other hand, there are possibilities of reducing the industrial work of the Arbitration Court, possibly by enlarging the powers and functions of domestic tribunals in the industries concerned in disputes. At the moment, however, it is sufficient to emphasise the imperative necessity for reform. The cost of the Arbitration Court, overburdened with demands for its services, is apparently about £5600 a year. Even if that expenditure had to be doubled, which need not be the case, the extra expense would almost certainly be far less than is now wasted by the aggravation of claims through the inability of the Court to deal with them promptly.