New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case stated

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2019

BENEFICIARY AP v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 2208

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2208
Court

High Court

The Authority and the BRC erred in limiting the scope of review and appeal to events after 3 October 2008; the appellant's request, properly construed, sought review of all underlying decisions that produced the calculated debt and included matters before that date, and the BRC should have considered any out-of-time review request under s10A(1B)(b); accordingly the case must be remitted to the Authority to decide the appeal on the merits including pre-2008 inputs.
12 Jul 2019

COOK v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because there was no arguable question of law: prior determinations conclusively resolved the special benefit issue and, on the statutory test for temporary additional support, the applicant had a calculated surplus and therefore no entitlement; accordingly the appeal had no real prospect of success and extension of time was refused.
14 Mar 2017

MCCARTNEY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 423

Citation

[2017] NZHC 423
Court

High Court

The appellant suffered no prejudice from the Ministry's delay; the Authority's factual finding that the appellant failed to apply earlier for personal reasons and not because of any erroneous action or inaction by the Ministry meant the s 80AA preconditions were not met, so there was no basis to backdate the benefit and the appeal must be dismissed.
29 Feb 2016

WEBSTER GROUP OF APPELLANTS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 31

Citation

[2016] NZCA 31
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because issue estoppel arising from this Court's earlier Wetherill decision bars Webster from relitigating whether the TRA erred in granting the Commissioner an extension of time; alternatively, even if the Commissioner had been out of time, exceptional circumstances justified an extension under reg 8(2).
18 Nov 2015

DAVID OWEN CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 176

Citation

[2015] NZSC 176
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance nor a risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; the Chair lawfully settled the case stated under s 12Q and any necessary amendment can be made by the High Court under r 21.12, so a fee waiver was unnecessary.
8 May 2015

GROSSER v GROSSER [2015] NZHC 974

Citation

[2015] NZHC 974
Court

High Court

Welfare guardians are entitled only to recover expenses reasonably incurred under s 21; they are not entitled to remuneration for acting as welfare guardian and cannot convert decision-making services into payable services via a company or controlled entity. Section 10(4) cannot be read to permit remuneration that is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act. Property managers may not act as welfare guardians and payments for consequential services should be met by property managers or other authorised persons, subject to statutory protections and disclosure of conflicts.
13 Feb 2015

Aalderink v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZHC 163

Citation

[2015] NZHC 163
Court

High Court

Section 163(1) does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision refusing leave to appeal because such a refusal is not a 'determination or decision of the Court on the appeal'; application dismissed.
26 Nov 2014

TE WHARE O TE KAITIAKI NGAHERE INCORPORATED SOCIETY v WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND ORS [2014] NZHC 2969

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2969
Court

High Court

The Court held costs should follow the event and awarded costs to TB Free New Zealand Ltd and West Coast Regional Council on the agreed 2B basis; Te Whare's claimed public interest motive and impecuniosity did not justify departing from the presumption that the unsuccessful party pay costs where the appeals were found to lack merit and were poorly presented.
2 Sept 2014

MARGOT CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZSC 119

Citation

[2014] NZSC 119
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the statutory power in s12Q to settle the case governs over High Court Rule r21.9(6), the High Court retained ability to amend the case at the substantive hearing, and it was not in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear the matter before the High Court determined the substantive appeal.
30 Jun 2014

CREQUER V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA84/2013 [2014] NZCA 284

Citation

[2014] NZCA 284
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to give compelling reasons for the delay and, critically, the proposed appeal is without merit; where leave is required the merits are an important discretionary consideration and Graebar and related authorities demonstrate the applicant's grounds are hopeless.