CREQUER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV 2012-485-1027

CREQUER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV 2012-485-1027 [21 December 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV 2012-485-1027[2012] NZHC 3620IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by way of case stated from thedetermination of the Social Security AppealAuthority at Wellington under s 12Q of theSocial Security Act 1964BETWEEN MARGOT CREQUERAppellantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEMINISTRY OF SOCIALDEVELOPMENTRespondentHearing: On the papersJudgment: 21 December 2012JUDGMENT OF MALLON J[1] Ms Crequer wishes to appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority. On 4 October 2012 I gave a judgment on a preliminary issue about the process for settling the case for the appeal. Ms Crequer objected to the Authority having substituted the 22 questions of law that she had posed with three questions of law suggested by the Ministry. In that judgment I ruled that it was for the Authority to determine the case. I therefore declined to refer the case, as settled by the Authority, back to the Authority as Ms Crequer had sought.[2] Ms Crequer now applies under r 7.49 of the High Court Rules to vary or rescind my decision. By agreement of the parties, the application is to be dealt with on the basis of the detailed written submissions that have been filed. It is apparent that considerable time and effort has gone into the submissions that are filed for MsCrequer. They are, however, directed at disputing the reasons for the judgment I gave. That is not a basis on which I can grant the application.[3] A review of an order, sought under r 7.49, is generally appropriate only:1(a) when there was not full argument on the first hearing; or(b) if some relevant point of evidence was overlooked at the original hearing; or(c) there has been a material change of circumstances; or(d) some other special circumstance has arisen.[4] None of the matters advanced on Ms Crequer's behalf fall into thosecategories. Nor is there any matter advanced that satisfies me that it is appropriate to transfer the application to the Court of Appeal. The questions of law that theAuthority's case poses are those that it views as properly arising from its decision. If the court hearing the appeal has a different view about that, there is the power to amend the questions at that time. It is in both parties' interest that the appeal now proceeds to a substantive hearing.[5] The application under r 7.49 is dismissed.Mallon J1 Beck and others McGechan on Procedure (looseleaf ed, Brookers) at [7.49.04].