RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4 [16January 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2017-485-381[2018] NZHC 4BETWEEN ARETA REREKAU TANARA MOTUMANGAI UHUUHU RANSFIELDApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEMINISTRY OF SOCIALDEVELOPMENTRespondentHearing: 26 October 2017Appearances: Mr A R T M M U Ransfield, the Applicant in personK M Hutchinson and O J G Upperton for the RespondentJudgment: 16 January 2018JUDGMENT OF PALMER JThis judgment is delivered by me on 16 January 2018 at 2.30 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarApplicant in personSolicitors:Crown Law, WellingtonSummary[1] Mr Ransfield applies for leave to appeal a decision of the Social SecurityAppeal Authority (SSAA) out of time. He was busy finding a place to stay and hewants to argue the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) should pay him for whathe says are consequential losses due to the form in which it gave him a grant. I amnot as confident as the SSAA that it had no jurisdiction to consider the matter. But Iconsider it is highly likely there is no merit in Mr Ransfield's appeal. If there is, it canbetter be considered in the general proceedings he has already commenced. I declinethe application.What happenedMr Ransfield[2] Mr Ransfield is a long-term client of MSD. In October 2006, he was servedwith a trespass order after threatening to go to a MSD appointment with a gun andthen yelling at the appointment. He was dealt with by MSD's Remote Client Unit(RCU) which deals with clients who cannot access services through their local Workand Income service centre. The trespass order has been regularly renewed since then,as has Mr Ransfield's status with the RCU. On 18 September 2015, the RCU ReviewPanel decided Mr Ransfield was ready to return to accessing Work and Incomeservices through his local service centre.Grant application[3] On 16 June 2015, Mr Ransfield applied for a grant, saying:I have to pay a phone bill of $90.00, and I need some money for food. I willonly be able to pay about $60.00. I need also $40.00 to replace my lost licenseto exempt [indecipherable] my vehicle for 12 months.[4] MSD held a telephone interview with Mr Ransfield. On 18 June 2015 Workand Income recorded this as an application for $100 for food with the reason given as:I am behind on my phone bill payments. I am making arrangements to paythis with Slingshot but now don't have enough food money for the week. Mywallet [has] gone and contained my licence, bank cards and payment card. Ihave also had to reapply for my licence which is $40.00 so am extra short.[5] Work and Income granted Mr Ransfield $100 via a payment card that couldonly be used to buy food. On 19 June 2015, MSD returned Mr Ransfield's call aboutthis. An MSD file note states:Assisted client with $100 food grant as he had a couple of urgent bills whichneeded paying. Client was confused and tried to use the payment card to paya bill, rather than at the supermarket for food. Client now understands andhave advised to use the card asap as it expires on the 21 June.Reviews and appeals[6] On 17 December 2015, Mr Ransfield applied for a review of MSD's decisionon the basis he had requested $40.00 for renewal of his driver's licence, not a foodgrant. Mr Ransfield also complained the failure to make the $40.00 payment led tohim being unable to pay his telephone and internet service account, leading to thembeing cut off and ultimately the loss of electrical services, equating to debts in excessof $500.[7] On 12 May 2016, the Chief Executive's internal review was satisfied, on thebalance of probabilities, Mr Ransfield had an immediate need to renew his driver'slicence. It overturned the decision not to pay for the licence to the value of $40.00 asa recoverable Special Needs Grant, it paid that amount into Mr Ransfield's bankaccount and agreed to apologise. The internal review does not appear to haveaddressed the question of consequential losses.[8] Mr Ransfield then further complained to the Benefits Review Committee. Heprovided the Committee with documentation indicating his debts with Baycorp,following the loss of telephone, internet and electrical services, amounted to $819.37.The matter proceeded to the Benefits Review Committee. On 11 July 2016, theCommittee noted Mr Ransfield had an immediate need to renew his licence and thatwas an essential need, to maintain the car and for his job searching. The Committeeagreed the decision to grant $100 for food was correct and the decision to decline anadvance payment of benefit of $40.00 was incorrect and noted it had already beenoverturned. The Committee declined to address the consequential loss aspect of MrRansfield's argument as it was not part of the decision the Committee was reviewing.[9] Mr Ransfield appealed the Committee's decision to the Social Security AppealAuthority. In its decision of 8 March 2017, the Authority could identify "only onedecision potentially within the Authority's jurisdiction under ss 12I and 12J" whichwas "the decision not to provide a Special Needs Grant of $40 on 17 June 2015" andnoted that had already been reversed.1 The Authority concluded it did not havejurisdiction relating to the consequential effects on Mr Ransfield of not receiving thegrant at the time he applied for it.2This application[10] On 19 April 2017 Mr Ransfield applied for leave to appeal the Authority'sdecision 29 days out of time. On the first call of his application, in June 2017, Faire Jsuggested to Mr Ransfield he might like to investigate pursuing the relief he wasseeking as a general proceeding rather than as an appeal. He filed a general proceedingon 3 July 2017, raising similar issues to those raised on this appeal. Crown Law hasapplied to strike out the general proceeding. That application has a fixture of 19February 2018.The relevant law[11] Under s 12Q of the Social Security Act 1964, any party to proceedings beforethe Authority may appeal to the High Court on a question of law only, within 14 daysof the decision. On application, the High Court has a discretion to extend the period.As Downs J has summarised:3(a) the overarching inquiry is whether the justice of the case requires theindividual being given the opportunity to appeal;(b) the reasons for failure to bring a timely appeal and any prejudice to theMinistry are important considerations; and1 Re Ransfield [2017] NZSSAA 4 at [21].2 At [21]–[23].3 Luckman v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2017] NZHC 629 at [15].(c) time should only be extended if the applicant can identify an arguablequestion of law.Submissions[12] Mr Ransfield says his application of 19 April was late because he understoodhe had 20 or 21 working days to appeal from 8 March (which would have been expiredon 6 April 2017), rather than 14 days, and he was busy finding a place to stay. MrUpperton, for the Crown, submits the application should be dismissed because theappeal lacks any merit, there is no arguable question of law, and the reasons for delayspeak against granting leave.Should Mr Ransfield be granted leave to appeal out of time?[13] Mr Ransfield's reasons for being out of time with his appeal are notcompelling. Whether leave should be granted comes down to whether there is anarguable question of law and whether the justice of the case requires him having theopportunity to appeal.[14] I am not as confident as the Authority that it had no jurisdiction whatsoever toconsider Mr Ransfield's appeal. As it noted, it had jurisdiction under s 12M(7) to"confirm, modify or reverse the decision or determination appealed against". Itconsidered that was the decision not to provide the $40.00. But, as he points out, MrRansfield was appealing the decision to provide him with funds in a form he could notuse to pay for a driver's licence. While he was subsequently provided with the fundsin the form he could use for that purpose, that did not address the problems MrRansfield says derived from the original decision. The Authority could potentiallyhave considered whether to modify the original decision.[15] But it is difficult to see what more the Authority could reasonably have done.Mr Ransfield seeks $819.37 on the basis MSD's decision meant he spent money onhis driver's licence that he otherwise would have spent on his phone and the pressureon his funds enticed him to accept a power company's attractive offer on a mistakenbasis. Even if the Authority were to stretch the definition of "modify" to include agrant for consequential losses, these losses cannot be reasonably regarded asconsequential on MSD's decision. Accordingly, I consider it is highly likely there isno merit in Mr Ransfield's appeal. If there were, the substantive relief he seeks isbetter considered in the general proceeding he has filed.Result[16] I decline the application for leave to appeal the Authority's decision out of time.Because I consider there was an arguable error regarding jurisdiction but there was,nevertheless, no merit in the appeal, costs will lie where they fell.Palmer J