Roper v Taylor and the Misnomer of a Comprehensive ACC Social Contract

Abstract

This article seeks to show that understanding the accident compensation scheme as a social contract does not inherently justify universal cover as the Supreme Court claims in Roper v Taylor. This article uses the facts of Roper v Taylor to explore two approaches to understanding the accident compensation scheme. The first relies on community responsibility to achieve comprehensive entitlement. The second relies on the social contract to establish entitlement in exchange for the right to sue. This article argues that the social contract does not inherently justify universal cover because coverage depends on which injuries Parliament has included within the scheme, rather than an overarching principle of community responsibility. Consequently, the Court's assertion of a principle of universal cover does not establish which injuries Parliament has in fact included within the social contract. To conclude, this article suggests that a principle of community responsibility could operate in a limited capacity to overrule textual interpretations where Parliament clearly intended a particular type of injury to fall within the social contract.