New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disability allowance

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2021

TAYLOR v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2021] NZCA 329

Citation

[2021] NZCA 329
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the operative October 2016 decision was properly reviewable and was lawfully made because the Ministry considered relevant matters, did not fetter its discretion, and appropriately applied the 15% methodology endorsed by prior judicial decisions; the September 2016 decision was spent and cannot be re‑litigated; the MAP/Powerswitch internal guidance is not binding; although a telephone hearing was undesirable for an unrepresented litigant, no miscarriage of justice resulted such as to warrant setting aside the decision.
22 Jul 2019

TAYLOR v THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY [2019] NZHC 1718

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1718
Court

High Court

Claims against the Minister, Consumer NZ and the Ombudsman are struck out: Minister and Consumer NZ because no reviewable exercise of public power or reasonable prospect on pleaded facts; Ombudsman because statutory immunity in ss 25 and 26 bars judicial review of decision not to investigate. Claims against the Authority that collaterally attack its April 2015 decision are struck out as abuse of process; remaining challenges to Authority pre-hearing direction and to the Ministry (notably alleged fettering by applying a 15% methodology without reconsideration) are not struck out and may procee…
16 Jun 2016

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v PORT [2016] NZHC 1314

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1314
Court

High Court

A one‑off purchase cannot be converted into an expense of an ongoing kind merely by arranging payment by instalments; therefore the Chief Executive was not required to contribute to the respondent's payments under the disability allowance and the Authority's directions must be cancelled.
1 Jun 2016

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 1160

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1160
Court

High Court

The Authority acted within its statutory discretion under s69C and the Regulations, was not legally required to follow the Ministry's MaP Powerswitch step mechanically, and its factual evaluative judgment fixing additional power costs at 15% was supported by evidence and not obviously wrong, so the questions of law are answered in favour of the Authority's methodology and conclusion.
5 May 2016

LAWSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 910

Citation

[2016] NZHC 910
Court

High Court

Bonus Bonds were correctly treated as unencumbered cash assets for assessing entitlement; the Authority lawfully applied an ordinary meaning of 'emergency' alongside cl12.2 factors; the Training Incentive Allowance refusal stands despite an acknowledged misapplied restriction because the lawful considerations and evidence justify the same outcome; storage fees for off-site furniture are not accommodation costs under s61E/s61EA; the Authority's factual assessments and discretionary conclusions were not legally erroneous in ways that would change outcomes; Authority should apply rigour in frami…
10 Dec 2014

PRASAD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 3156

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3156
Court

High Court

The Authority erred in law by excluding the $50 without first determining whether the expense fell within the specific categories of allowable costs in cl 2.1 of the Ministerial Direction; that error warranted answering the stated question in the affirmative and no rehearing was required given the trivial amount and conceded outcome.
22 Feb 2013

THOMPSON V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC TAU CIV-2012-485-001531

Citation

openlaw-23ebd540_c6d7_453e_81d5_644f789f6cf8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive’s discretion under s69C(1) is capped by Schedule 19 so no payment above $59.12; the appellant’s physiotherapy did not qualify as a disability-related expense because the disability was not shown to be likely to continue six months and treatment was available via public health, so those costs were not allowable for temporary additional support; statutory/regulatory deductions and the exclusion of Sky subscription under the Regulations were correctly applied, therefore the appellant was not entitled to ongoing temporary additional support as at 18 July 2011.
11 Aug 1997

PRS v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1997] NZACC 169
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove by reliable evidence that a qualifying written application for lump sum compensation was made before the 1 October 1992 cutoff required by the 1992 Act; consequently the statutory transitional provisions bar a lump sum award and the appeal is dismissed.