MARGOT CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZSC 119

MARGOT CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZSC 119

Leave to appeal was refused because the statutory power in s12Q to settle the case governs over High Court Rule r21.9(6), the High Court retained ability to amend the case at the substantive hearing, and it was not in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear the matter before the High Court determined...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZSC 119
Parties
Applicant: Margot Crequer; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Appeal From Social Security Appeal Authority / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Following High Court and Court of Appeal Decisions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Case Stated, Settlement of Case by Statutory Authority, High Court Rules R21.9, High Court Rules R21.12, High Court Rules R7.49, Social Security Act S12 Q, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time in Appellate Procedure
Administrative Law Social Security Law Civil Procedure Case Stated Settlement of Case by Statutory Authority High Court Rules R21.9 High Court Rules R21.12 High Court Rules R7.49 +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margot Crequer

Applicant

Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Stated Appeal From Social Security Appeal Authority / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Following High Court and Court of Appeal Decisions

  1. 1 Whether the Social Security Appeal Authority could amend the applicant's draft case beyond correcting errors of fact
  2. 2 Whether s12Q of the Social Security Act 1964 prevails over High Court Rules r21.9(6)
  3. 3 Whether Mallon J should vary or rescind her earlier judgment under High Court Rules r7.49

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the statutory power in s12Q to settle the case governs over High Court Rule r21.9(6), the High Court retained ability to amend the case at the substantive hearing, and it was not in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear the matter before the High Court determined the substantive appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Respondent will not seek to enforce the Court of Appeal costs award and does not seek costs for this application