Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

I received yesterday the submissions for a case that is being heard XXXXXXXXX. The issue is actually a very simple issue that is detailed within a decision letter.

At its heart, this is an insurance claim. I pay my premiums, if I am injured, I can make a claim to be compensated for that injury. The twist is that the insurer is the government, via a government corporation. The insurance policy is legislation that has over the years, 1972, 1982, 1992, 1998, 2001, been amended. Each amendment makes it easier for the insurer, not to pay out on the policy.

The current legislation makes small claims relatively easy to claim and there are not too many issues. The problem lies in long-term claims, where, the person is pretty much injured for life. The purpose is to support them financially etc. What ends up is either (a) they are denied cover [and walk away] or (b) they are denied cover and a protracted legal struggle ensues.

This person has had legal issues since 1985. This case is just 1 of several cases. This case in-of-itself, is, as I said, a simple issue. However the submissions raise the history from 1985, which, are only tangentially relevant as factual matrix and do not really impact this very specific issue.

The reason that they are not really relevant is that the insurer accepts the claim. The insurer accepts the injury. The insurer accepts that ‘but for’ a technicality, the claim should be paid.

The technicality is a point of law. The law is clear however, the ‘but for’ technicality does not exist at law. Thus, the decision is null. The plaintiff [ought] to succeed.

We’ll see.