New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Means assessment

Legal area

Court

31 May 2019

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v BROADBENT [2019] NZCA 201

Citation

[2019]3 NZLR 376
Court

Court of Appeal

The Chief Executive may not include notional income derived from assets validly gifted where the value of the gifts is below the excessive gifting threshold in reg 9B(a); deprivation under s 147A is a gateway requiring the applicant to have deprived themselves of income or property and, where gifts were valid and below the threshold income follows the gifted asset and is excluded from count-back; where the deprivation relates instead to forgiven loan principal the Chief Executive's count-back must focus on the notional interest on that reducing principal and not on grossing up trust asset val…
19 Oct 2017

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v BROADBENT _x000b_[2017] NZCA 474

Citation

[2017] NZCA 474
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the approved question—whether the Chief Executive may include income capable of being derived from gifted assets valued below the permitted threshold in means assessments under ss 147 and 147A—raises an issue of general and public importance affecting a significant number of applicants and residents, and thus merits determination by the Court of Appeal.
30 Jun 2017

BROADBENT v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 1499

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1127
Court

High Court

Gifts within the statutory permissible thresholds (including the $27,000 pre-gifting-year limit and the $6,000 per annum five-year allowance) are unconditional and include any associated income; consequently the Chief Executive may not treat the income associated with permitted gifts as 'deprived income' under s147A and the Authority erred in determining otherwise.
28 Nov 2013

ROBINSON v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS [2013] NZHC 3148

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3148
Court

High Court

The District Court lawfully exercised its discretion to remit outstanding fines and enforcement fees and substitute the minimum 40 hours community work; statutory preconditions were satisfied by the means assessment and consideration, the sentence was within the lawful range, and the appellant's medical complaint should be addressed by an application to the District Court to cancel or vary the sentence rather than by appeal.
21 Nov 2013

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v SWANN [2013] NZHC 3118

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3118
Court

High Court

The District Court Judge lawfully exercised his sentencing discretion by remitting outstanding fines and substituting the minimum lawful sentence of 40 hours community work after a means assessment showed an unacceptable repayment period; statutory prerequisites were addressed and the appellant's asserted medical incapacity should be pursued by application to the District Court for variation or cancellation rather than by appellate challenge, therefore the High Court dismissed the appeal.
28 Nov 2012

B V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV-2012-485-000688

Citation

openlaw-e59637cc_9304_4f8a_b485_0edb6ebb7eef.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority and Ministry were correct: s147A allows consideration of deprivation by an applicant and the applicant's spouse; reg 9B(a) properly construed permits aggregation of gifts made by the applicant and spouse so that gifts exceeding $27,000 in a 12‑month period are assessable in aggregate; the $27,000 figure was chosen with reference to prior gift duty rules but the regulations operate to aggregate couple gifts; the NZBORA challenge fails because no appropriate comparator establishes prohibited discrimination and, alternatively, the statutory language is unambiguous so s4 NZBORA appl…
20 May 2010

ROBERTS V ROBERTS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8470

Citation

openlaw-05238b72_4eaa_41f7_ae39_86d035ae8a2a.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Family Court erred in excluding state benefit income from the applicant's means; s65(2)(a) requires regard to means and s62 does not mandate disregarding benefits, and established authorities (B v K; C v H) support taking benefits into account; accordingly the maintenance orders exceeded the applicant's needs and were quashed.

New Zealand Case Law

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v BROADBENT [2019] NZCA 201

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v BROADBENT _x000b_[2017] NZCA 474

BROADBENT v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 1499

ROBINSON v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS [2013] NZHC 3148

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v SWANN [2013] NZHC 3118

B V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV-2012-485-000688

ROBERTS V ROBERTS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8470