New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case stated appeal

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2022

GALLAGHER-SCOTT v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 296

Citation

[2022] NZHC 296
Court

High Court

Because s 163 only permits appeals from actual determinations or decisions of the High Court on an appeal, a High Court refusal to grant special leave is not such a determination and the Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal; further s 162(4)'s 21 day limit for special leave applications is mandatory and cannot be extended, so the out of time application must be dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v CV [2019] NZHC 3135

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3135
Court

High Court

The High Court found the Authority's factual finding that the 27 February 2012 letter did not state that people in paid employment could receive NZ Super was incorrect in light of the produced letter; that factual error amounted to an error of law requiring the Authority's decision to be quashed; the case stated was amended, the new question answered in the affirmative, and the matter remitted to the Authority for reconsideration in light of the correct evidence.
25 Sept 2015

LANDY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 2338

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2338
Court

High Court

The overpayment debt was created by the prior payment of special benefits and crystallised when ACC entitlement was confirmed; the Ministry's subsequent omission to implement the appellant's instruction did not cause the overpayment so s86(9A) does not bar recovery, and the Authority did not err in exercising its discretion under s86(1) to allow recovery.
25 Sept 2015

LANDY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 2338

Citation

LANDY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 2338
Court

High Court

The debt arose from overpayments of special benefits that crystallised when ACC entitlement was confirmed and therefore was not caused by the Ministry's later omission to implement the appellant's instruction; consequently s86(9A) did not bar recovery and the Authority did not err in refusing to direct non-recovery under s86(1).
7 May 2015

P v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 960

Citation

[2015] NZHC 960
Court

High Court

The statutory framework (s252 ACC Act read with ss71A and 83A Social Security Act) and the inter-agency procedure meant the Authority correctly concluded ACC reimbursed MSD the net benefit and the tax component is for IRD to address; the Authority's calculation and conclusion were supported by evidence and did not involve an error of law.
19 Dec 2014

ROBB v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 3347

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3347
Court

High Court

The Authority's factual findings were supported by evidence (TVNZ records establishing employment and the appellant's failure to provide any probative evidence of expenses or phone declarations); consequently no question of law arose from s64(3) because there was no evidence to which it could apply, and there was no legal error in the Authority's conclusions; appeal dismissed.
10 Mar 2014

MORGAN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 421

Citation

[2014] NZHC 421
Court

High Court

The Authority correctly recognized deprivation may be deliberate, but erred in applying s 74(1)(d) because deprivation must be the determinative cause of qualification for the benefit; TAA is not asset or income tested so depriving oneself of property via a trust did not make the appellants qualify when they otherwise would not. On the facts appellants otherwise met Programme eligibility and the Authority's exercise of discretion to decline was incorrect; High Court reversed and approved grant of TAA at $300 per week.
18 Dec 2013

HENNESSY v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2013] NZHC 3449

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3449
Court

High Court

The applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal were refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 11 month delay and the proposed grounds did not raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance under s144(2), with s86 of the Social Security Act not being sufficiently engaged on the facts to justify a second appeal.
9 May 2013

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION V MILLER COA CA311/2012

Citation

COA CA311/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held Q(a) yes and Q(b) no: it is not automatic that interest runs from the date compensation was suspended merely because payments were previously made; whether interest runs depends on when the Corporation first had 'all information necessary' (medical, financial and other) to calculate the payment. Kearney's principle that the Corporation cannot benefit from its own omission stands, but that does not displace the statutory test. The matter raises factual questions about when the Corporation received and had opportunity to assess necessary information and is remitted to the High Co…
21 Dec 2012

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

Citation

openlaw-a264d584_3735_465c_b2bf_16aa04d4a26b.pdf
Court

High Court

The application under r 7.49 was dismissed because none of the established grounds for review were met and it is for the Social Security Appeal Authority to settle the questions of law for the appeal; if the court hearing the appeal disagrees it can amend the questions at the substantive hearing, so the appeal should proceed.