New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

New zealand superannuation

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2017

TAN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZCA [10 October 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZCA
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined leave because the High Court correctly applied settled law that payments from the Singapore Central Provident Fund are periodical allowances/pensions administered by a foreign government and therefore deductible under s70; consequently the suspension under s69G(4) was appropriate and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
4 Oct 2017

PRIDMORE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 2434

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2434
Court

High Court

The Authority correctly interpreted s 26B and, applying the Greenfield criteria to the material as at April 2011, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he applied for portability; therefore the Authority's decision to decline portability is upheld.
19 Dec 2014

Stacey v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 349
Court

District Court

Clause 52 must be interpreted to refer to defined 12-month periods and not cumulative aggregated periods of weekly compensation; the appellant was not entitled to the relief sought and the Court lacks jurisdiction to order weekly compensation in a way that would affect New Zealand superannuation, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
12 Dec 2014

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v GREENFIELD CA351/2014 [2014] NZCA 611 .

Citation

[2014] NZCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal

For s 8(a) an applicant must demonstrate a close and clear connection to New Zealand at the date of application assessed objectively: usual physical presence in New Zealand (not casual visits), voluntary presence, an intention to remain for a settled purpose, continuity of residence despite temporary absences, and absence of residence in another country; missionary status is irrelevant and ss 9–10 relate only to calculating presence for ss 8(b) and (c).
19 Jun 2014

MALSTER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 1368

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1368
Court

High Court

Because the UK pensions are administered by the UK government under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and provide for the same contingency (old age), they fall within s 70 and are deductible from New Zealand Superannuation regardless of whether funded by compulsory contributions; the Authority's interpretation and application of s 70 was correct and Magna Carta does not prevent operation of s 69H(1)(b) or s 70.
26 Apr 2012

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION V STEWART HC WN CIV-2012-485-000208

Citation

openlaw-87195dc7_3fb4_4374_a54b_d87626392d5c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that 'first' in cl 52 refers to the claimant's initial entitlement to weekly compensation for the injury (here 29 September 2006) and that the phrase 'has been entitled to it for 24 months or longer' is measured from that first entitlement date rather than requiring continuous payment; applying those constructions cl 52(1) and (2) applied to the respondent and consequently his weekly compensation entitlement ceased on reaching New Zealand superannuation qualification age (65). Clause 52(6) did not apply.
28 Jul 2010

CLARKSON V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV-2010-485-519

Citation

openlaw-d67c63a0_80b7_41a7_87d9_651095fdebfe.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority correctly applied the legal test for "ordinarily resident" by focusing on the appellant's intention and circumstances at the date of application; its conclusion that the appellant was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he applied was a factual finding open on the evidence and did not involve an error of law, so questions 1 and 2 answered No and question 3 answered Yes.
30 Mar 2009

BREDMEYER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SC 14/2009

Citation

SC 14/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that Article 9(3) must be read in its plain and ordinary meaning so that the cap on New Zealand Superannuation is the amount of Australian age pension that would in fact be payable; the applicant's suggested construction requiring an assumed entitlement despite means-testing is a strained interpretation, contrary to the statutory scheme and prior authority and therefore untenable.
17 Dec 2008

AUDREY BREDMEYER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA CA666/2007

Citation

openlaw-3cf2736a_6ecb_471a_acf4_eced01a4c2a1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Article 9(3) must be interpreted in light of the Agreement's coordinating purpose to ensure equivalence; it requires an assessment of the Australian age pension (which entails the applicant seeking assessment from Australian authorities); because the appellant failed the Australian means test and the Australian age pension payable was nil, she was not entitled to New Zealand superannuation under article 9(3).
30 Jan 2008

Proctor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 24
Court

District Court

Clause 52 of Schedule 1 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 applies so that a claimant who first became entitled to weekly compensation more than 24 months before reaching New Zealand Superannuation qualification age loses entitlement on reaching that age; the appellant met that condition and therefore weekly compensation properly ceased at age 65 and the appeal must be dismissed.