22 Dec 2017
FIPPARD v THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 3295
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 3295
- Court
- High Court
Answer to question 1: No — any expectation from the 20 October letter was at best ambiguous and was displaced by the clear 21 October letter; reliance was unreasonable. Answer to question 2: Yes — the Authority erred by upholding a sanction that the Ministry was not authorised to impose under ss116B and 117; the substantive sanction was invalid notwithstanding the form of the notice. The Ministry must remedy the invalid sanction (apology and payment of arrears).