MICHAEL RAYMOND MAIN V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC HAM CIV 2011-419-123

MICHAEL RAYMOND MAIN V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC HAM CIV 2011-419-123 [9 November 2011]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYCIV 2011-419-123BETWEEN MICHAEL RAYMOND MAINPlaintiffAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRYOF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTDefendantHearing: 9 November 2011Appearances: Plaintiff in personE Child for DefendantJudgment: 9 November 2011JUDGMENT OF KEANE JSolicitors:Crown Law Office; edrick.child@crownlaw.govt.nzCopy to:M R Main, 2524 State Highway 27, RD 3, Morrinsville 3373[1] In this application for judicial review Michael Main, presently a sickness beneficiary, seeks to have quashed as taken invalidly the decision of the delegate of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development to halt his invalid's benefit on 23 April 2010. He seeks to have the benefit restored as from the date it was halted, in fact 30 August 2010.[2] The Chief Executive does not concede that the decision sought to be set aside was taken invalidly. But the Chief Executive does accept that the basis on which the benefit ceased may have been less than satisfactory and conclusive so far as Mr Main is concerned. The Chief Executive has for some time offered to settle the proceeding.[3] Since Duffy J directed on 3 August 2011 that the application be set down for a day's hearing, timetabled it, and directed the telephone conference for today, there has been a material development. In a memorandum, dated 2 November 2011, that Mr Main appears not yet to have received, the Chief Executive has offered to consent to judgment in favour of Mr Main, setting aside the decision dated 23 April 2010, and restoring Mr Main's right to the invalid's benefit as from 30 August 2010.[4] I explained to Mr Main that, as a result of the Chief Executive's concession, there is now no issue for this Court to resolve. I emphasised to him, also, that the Chief Executive must still, as a matter of duty, be assured that he does qualify for an invalid's benefit and that he might well be asked to undergo a fresh medical assessment with a new assessor. That, I explained also, was beyond the scope of this present proceeding.[5] I asked Mr Main whether he had incurred any solicitor's fee or any related disbursements in bringing his application. He said that he had not engaged any solicitor and that the filing fee had been waived. He did not identify any other costs. On the face of it, therefore, there is no issue as to costs or disbursements.[6] Against that context I give judgment by consent for Mr Main. I set aside the decision of the Commissioner's delegate, dated 23 April 2010, halting his invalid's benefit. I confirm that the effect will be that the benefit is to resume as from the dateit was last paid, 30 August 2010, at the rate that has since prevailed. There will be no order as to costs or disbursements._____________P.J. Keane J