Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Mr Simm lodged a claim for compensation under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 ("the 2001 Act") for lung cancer caused by passive smoking in the workplace, either as personal injury caused by accident or by work-related gradual process. His claim was rejected on the basis that personal injury caused by passive smoking was excluded from cover as a work-related personal injury under the former Accident Insurance Act 1998, and cover under the transitional provisions of the 2001 Act required the injury to have been compensable under the previous Act.
The parties agreed for the Court to decide as a preliminary matter of law whether cover could lie under the 2001 Act for lung cancer caused by passive smoking first treated in 1999.
In this decision, Ongley J found that the claim could not fall for cover under the 2001 Act, either as a personal injury caused by accident or as a work-related gradual injury - the matter had been subject to continuing statutory exclusions which were clear in their purpose.
This decision was unsuccessfully appealed: see Simm v. Accident Compensation Commission [2006] NZHC 1634 (20 December 2006).