MEEK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 967 [13 May 2016]

MEEK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 967[13 May 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2015-485-820[2016] NZHC 967UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972BETWEEN STUART JAMES MEEKApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEMINISTRY OF SOCIALDEVELOPMENTRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Applicant in PersonN Bailey for RespondentJudgment: 13 May 2016JUDGMENT OF ELLIS JI direct that the delivery time of this judgment is2.30 pm on the 13th day of May 2016[1] Mr Meek has filed a claim in judicial review against the Chief Executive of theMinistry of Social Development (MSD). His claim broadly relates to the service hereceived from MSD following the Christchurch earthquakes, and his subsequent moveto the Wellington area. To say that the earthquakes and their aftermath have beenextremely distressing for Mr Meek would be a gross understatement.[2] On 27 January 2016 MSD filed an application to strike out Mr Meek's claimon the basis that:(a) it discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action; and(b) it is frivolous or vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the process of theCourt.[3] On 2 February 2016 I directed that Mr Meek respond to the strike-outapplication, either by filing a formal notice of opposition, advising the Court that hewishes to oppose on the basis of the material already filed by him, or advising that hewishes to discontinue. He did not respond in any of these ways. Rather, he continuedto bombard the Registry with highly emotive emails. On 16 March I directed that ifthere was no response by 23 March, then I would determine the strike-out applicationon the papers.[4] Mr Meek continued to email the Registry as before. His emails only verytangentially related to the strike-out. On 5 April 2016 I advised that I would determinethe matter on the papers and that Mr Meek's emails would be taken as expressing hisposition in that regard. Counsel for MSD then filed formal submissions. Mr Meeksent two further emails.Background[5] Mr Meek's pleaded account of the facts underlying his claim is not especiallycoherent, so the following background is largely taken from the Crown's affidavitevidence (which is based on the documentary record and has not been disputed) andsubmissions.[6] Following the Canterbury earthquake in February 2011 Mr Meek moved fromChristchurch to Wellington. He initially stayed with a friend before moving into hisown accommodation. On 22 March 2011, Mr Meek went to the Naenae Service Centreand asked that Work and Income pay him $2,038.00 for relocation and storage costsfor his household items, and $472.50 for accommodation costs for his stay in HanmerSprings on route to Wellington.[7] Mr Meek was told at that meeting that he had not established an immediate oressential need and that his applications were declined. It is accepted that there was,however, some delay in sending out a letter formally advising him of this.[8] After the meeting, Mr Meek's accommodation supplement and special benefitwere cancelled because he had informed Work and Income that he had noaccommodation costs at that time. But he was later granted both an accommodationsupplement and a special benefit backdated to 17 March 2011 by the Naenae ServiceCentre.[9] On 16 June 2011 Work and Income received a phone call from Mr Meek'sinsurer advising that it would be paying $1,104.00 towards his relocation costs.[10] On 27 June 2011 Mr Meek received $2,311.74 in advance payment of benefitfor relocation costs, rent/letting fees and bond, in relation to his move to Wellington.[11] In August 2013, Mr Meek received an ex gratia payment of $2,000 for whatMSD determined were service failures on its part. The service failures related to thedelay in informing Mr Meek that his initial application for relocation andaccommodation costs had been declined. He was also advised that MSD would notseek to recover his debt of $2,311.74 arising from the advance payment for relocationcosts, rent/letting fee and bond.[12] Mr Meek received a letter of apology from Work and Income in relation to theservice failures, dated 4 December 2013.[13] On 23 October 2014, Mr Meek filed what appear to have been negligenceproceedings against MSD in the District Court. The claim related to the servicefailures to which I have referred, alleging that he had lost the opportunity to claiminsurance payments, and that they had caused his mental health to deteriorate.[14] On 5 August 2015, Judge Hastings struck out Mr Meek's claim.[15] In the meantime, on 28 July 2015, Mr Meek challenged MSD's decision todecline a clothing grant application he had made, utilising the review and appealsprocess in the Social Security Act 1964 (the SSA). On 16 October 2015, the BenefitsReview Committee (BRC) overturned MSD's decision. On 6 November 2015, MSDapproved the payment for clothing.[16] On 17 December 2015 MSD sent a letter to Mr Meek, informing him that hisapplication for advance payment for firewood was declined, and that he could reviewthe decision to decline using the statutory process. MSD apologised that Mr Meekhad not been advised of that decision earlier.Mr Meek's application for review[17] Mr Meek's claim is not clearly or coherently pleaded. However, it appears thathe challenges the following:(a) the decision in March to decline his application for relocation andaccommodation costs; and relating to this:(i) the delay in informing him of this outcome;(ii) the insufficiency of the compensation granted in relation to this;(iii) the fact that he was unable to get insurance as a result of thedelay; and(iv) the emotional harm caused by the delay, including mental healthissues.(b) other decisions of MSD:(i) granting him a recoverable advance payment of benefit, insteadof issuing him a non-recoverable civil defence payment forcosts associated with his move to Wellington;(ii) declining his application for a clothing grant; and(iii) declining his application for an advance payment for firewood;and(c) his having not "been allowed" to appeal in respect of the abovedecisions.[18] The relief sought by Mr Meek is, so far as it is discernible:(a) recognition of the humiliation and hardship he has suffered;(b) that MSD staff are held accountable;(c) payment of fair compensation; and(d) that the debt he owes MSD is wiped.[19] As I have said, the grounds for strike-out advanced by MSD is that Mr Meek'sstatement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, and that it isfrivolous, vexatious, and otherwise an abuse of process. I need consider only the firstground.No reasonably arguable cause of action[20] The rules and principles governing applications to strike-out are well knownand I do not propose to set them out here.11 See generally rule 15.1 of the High Court Rules and the decision in Attorney-General v Princeand Gardener [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267.[21] The first and fundamental point is that the claim as pleaded is very difficult tounderstand and does not clearly set out any cause of action at all. As I have said, thefacts relied on by Mr Meek are far from clear from the claim, and I have been requiredto rely significantly on MSD's account of his interactions with Work and Income. Inonetheless attempt to address the claims as I understand them to be.The March decision and delay in informing Mr Meek[22] As I have said, Mr Meek has claimed relief for suffering, hardship and mentaldistress, said to have been caused by MSD's delay in informing him that hisapplication for relocation and accommodation costs was declined. He says that thedelay in sending the letter declining his application caused him to miss out oninsurance, because he was told by the insurance company he needed a letter from MSDand it was "too late" by the time he got it. He also claims that this delay contributedto his mental health issues.[23] There are two fundamental difficulties with this aspect of the claim.[24] First, it must be assumed (from the relief pleaded) that the impugned decisionis the decision denying his application for relocation and accommodation costs. MSDhas accepted that that decision was wrong and, indeed, has essentially remade it toopposite effect. Thus Mr Meek has already received the greatest benefit that couldordinarily be obtained by way of review.[25] The second, and related, difficulty is that the relief claimed appears focussedon compensation. Putting to one side the fact that Mr Meek has already receivedcompensation in relation to the "service failures", an application for judicial review isnot a foundation for a damages claim.Decisions of MSD regarding grant of benefits and rights of appeal[26] The three other MSD decisions apparently challenged by Mr Meek are thedecisions to:(a) grant him a recoverable advance payment of benefit, instead of issuinghim non-recoverable civil defence payments for costs associated withhis move to Wellington (27 June 2011);(b) decline his application for a clothing grant (12 July 2015); and(c) decline his application for an advance payment for firewood(17 December 2015).[27] He also says that he has been denied appeal rights in relation to these decisions.[28] Again, the claims face some insuperable hurdles.[29] First, Mr Meek does not identify any error of law or process which mightvitiate the decisions. That point alone means that no tenable cause of action isdisclosed.[30] Secondly, he had statutory rights of appeal against those decisions.2 And whilethe existence of appeal rights does not preclude a claim for review, they do call intoquestion its utility. And again the more fundamental point is that Mr Meek does notplead how he has been denied these rights. Indeed, his assertion appears somewhatcontrary to the reality, which is that he has in fact successfully appealed the seconddecision to the Benefits Review Committee, and subject to the operation of statutorytime limits it remains open to him to appeal the third one.Conclusion[31] The Court necessarily has considerable sympathy for Mr Meek and thechallenges he has faced and the losses he has suffered. As I have said, his2 Under s 10A of the Act, applicants or beneficiaries affected by a decision may apply to have thatreviewed by the Benefits Review Committee. Subsection (8) of that provision states that theCommittee, after reviewing the decision, may confirm, vary, or revoke it. Written notification ofthe decision is provided to the applicant for review, including the reasons for the Committee'sdecision and advice that the applicant has a right of appeal against the decision to the SocialSecurity Appeal Authority (the Authority). Appeals to the Authority are made under s 12J.Appeals are conducted by way of rehearing, and the Authority may confirm, modify, or reversethe decision appealed against. The appellant may then appeal the decision of the Authority to theHigh Court by way of case stated on a question of law.communications with the Court make it clear that he continues to be very distressedand it is sincerely to be hoped that he can get the help that he needs. And it may bethat his distress has been exacerbated by his interactions with bureaucracy, althoughfrom the material that is before me it seems that the mistakes have been admitted andredress attempted.[32] In any event, the conclusion that none of Mr Meek's claims (insofar as they arediscernible at all) give rise to a tenable cause of action is inescapable. He has assertederror but has provided no factual or legal grounds for the assertion. No legal mistake,breach of natural justice, or unreasonableness is identified in relation to any of theimpugned decisions. In the absence of a properly pleaded and comprehensible claimthe Court is unable to assist him. I have no option but to strike out the claim for reviewand I do so accordingly."Rebecca Ellis J"Solicitors: Crown Law for RespondentCopy to: The Applicant