GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 1199
The Authority erred in law in its interpretation and application of ss 7–10 of the NZ Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 by treating s 10 as exclusively determinative of the residence requirements in s 8(b) and (c) and by imposing a requirement that a missionary must show a 'settled life' in New Zealand...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 1199
- Parties
- Appellant: Dawn Lorraine Greenfield; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal by Way of Case Stated Under the Social Security Act 1964 / Application for Leave to Appeal (leave to Apply for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Granted)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time granted by consent; the court answered the three stated questions 'Yes' finding the Authority erred in law; court satisfied issues meet criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Ordinary Residence, Residence Requirements, New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, Missionary Absences, S 10 Interpretation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dawn Lorraine Greenfield
Appellant
The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated Under the Social Security Act 1964 / Application for Leave to Appeal (leave to Apply for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Granted)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s 10 of the NZ Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 is directed towards determining the residence requirements in s 8(b) and (c) of the Act
- 2 Whether a missionary must show her settled life is in New Zealand and that absences from New Zealand are temporary to be considered 'ordinarily resident'
- 3 Whether the Social Security Appeal Authority erred in applying the meaning of 'ordinarily resident in New Zealand' to Mrs Greenfield
Ratio Decidendi
The Authority erred in law in its interpretation and application of ss 7–10 of the NZ Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 by treating s 10 as exclusively determinative of the residence requirements in s 8(b) and (c) and by imposing a requirement that a missionary must show a 'settled life' in New Zealand and that absences are temporary to be ordinarily resident; the issues are fit for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time granted by consent; the court answered the three stated questions 'Yes' finding the Authority erred in law; court satisfied issues meet criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal; costs reserved.
Orders
- Leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time granted by consent.
- Three questions posed by the Social Security Appeal Authority answered 'Yes' (Authority erred in law).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 1199 [30 May 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2013-485-002305[2014] NZHC 1199UNDER the Social Security Act 1964IN THE MATTER of an appeal by way of case stated from adetermination of the Social SecurityAppeal Authority under s 12Q of theSocial Security Act 1964BETWEEN DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELDAppellantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEMINISTRY OF SOCIALDEVELOPMENTRespondentJudgment: 30 May 2014JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J[Leave to Appeal][1] The application for leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time is granted by consent.[2] In my judgment of 29 November 2013 I answered three questions posed by the Social Security Appeal Authority (the Authority). Those questions involved issues relating to the meaning of aspects of ss 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (the Act).[3] The three questions posed by the Authority were:(1) Did the Authority err in law when holding s 10 of the Act as directed towards determining residence requirements in s 8(b) and (c) of the Act?(2) Did the Authority err in law by holding that a missionary must show that her settled life is in New Zealand and absences from NewZealand are temporary, in order to be considered "ordinarily resident"in New Zealand?(3) Did the Authority err in law in its application of the meaning of"ordinarily resident in New Zealand" to Mrs Greenfield's situation?[4] I answered all three questions "Yes".[5] I am satisfied that the issues raised by the questions I answered meet the criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.[6] The questions which the Court of Appeal is invited to consider are whether I erred in law when I answered any of the questions set out in paragraph [3] above.[7] Costs are reserved.____________________D B Collins JSolicitors:Robert Brace, Porirua for AppellantCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent