New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Special needs grant

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2018

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

Citation

[2018] NZHC 4
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was declined because, although there was an arguable jurisdictional point that the Authority might have modified the original decision, the claimed consequential losses were not reasonably consequential on the Ministry's decision and the appeal lacked sufficient merit or an arguable question of law to justify extending time; the substantive relief is more appropriately pursued in general proceedings.
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…
28 Jul 2015

LITTLE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 1744

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1744
Court

High Court

The Authority and Chief Executive correctly included the applicant's bank savings within the statutory definition of cash assets in both the Special Needs Grants Programme and the Advance Payment of Benefits Direction; the schemes afford no discretion to disregard earmarked savings and no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an advance, therefore the appeals fail.
19 Mar 2015

THODE v THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 521

Citation

[2015] NZHC 521
Court

High Court

The Authority erred by conflating the Trust and the appellant and by determining as a matter of law that drawings from a bank overdraft facility secured against capital automatically constitute the appellant's "income" without first making factual findings about the true nature of the payments from the Trust to the appellant; consequently the High Court remitted the case stated to the Social Security Appeal Authority for evidence and factual determination on the nature of those payments; the Court answered the other two questions: the Authority did not err by including Child Support (answer:…
6 Jul 2009

FOSTER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC CIV 2008-485-2395

Citation

openlaw-6130fc41_2090_488c_bc40_a969cc29d379.pdf
Court

High Court

Time to file was enlarged because the applicant acted without legal advice and reasonably misunderstood procedure, but leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise any question of law of general or public importance and his complaint about benefit adequacy is not justiciable; the decision to provide a recoverable advance rather than a non-recoverable grant involved no error of law.
18 Aug 2006

ATANASOVSKI V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC AK CIV 2006-404-002423

Citation

openlaw-dc75d792_66b1_4463_8a03_03c399b4cf7b.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority's conclusion that the appellant did not establish exceptional circumstances was reasonable and not an error of law because the appellant's recurrent shortfall, financial mismanagement, and the lawful splitting of benefits between spouses did not amount to the rare "exceptional circumstances" required to justify payments beyond programme limits.
17 Jul 2003

G & J DENNIS V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME CA CA103/03

Citation

openlaw-d9b5b7f5_d2c3_48a4_950b_c9dcb654685c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The ABP and SNG schemes operate alongside one another; the Chief Executive lawfully exercised discretion to provide a recoverable ABP for the replacement water tank, there was no legal error in the decision-making or in the sequencing alleged by the applicants, and no basis existed to overturn the Authority or High Court; leave to appeal is refused.

New Zealand Case Law

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

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

LITTLE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 1744

THODE v THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 521

FOSTER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC CIV 2008-485-2395

ATANASOVSKI V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC AK CIV 2006-404-002423

G & J DENNIS V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME CA CA103/03