New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Notional income

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2006

MANU GOPALJI CHHIMA AND ANOR V CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA CA224/06

Citation

openlaw-76562971_46be_44f8_aa3d_528183837928.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held s 74(1)(d) is clear that the Chief Executive may reduce or refuse benefits where an applicant has directly or indirectly deprived themselves of income or property; deprivation can include a deliberate omission to generate income from a business asset; in the present facts the respondent's determination and exercise of discretion were open on the law and there was no error of law warranting leave to appeal.
24 Feb 2006

CHHIMA AND CHHIMA V WINZ HC AK CIV-2004-485-1761

Citation

openlaw-56626400_06da_4561_87c4_0caa10e48770.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that 'deprive' in s 74(1)(d) includes deliberate omissions as well as positive acts; an applicant who deliberately fails to derive readily available income from a commercial asset can be treated as having deprived himself or herself of income for the purposes of s 74(1)(d); on the facts the Appeal Authority's findings were open on the evidence and its exercise of discretion to attribute notional income and reduce benefits was not unlawful or unreasonable; therefore the appeals were dismissed.