New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ordinary residence

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2017

PRIDMORE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 2569

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2569
Court

High Court

Recall was refused because none of the limited grounds for recall applied: there was no new statute or authoritative decision, all relevant authorities (including Greenfield) were before the Court, late service of Crown submissions could not change the legal answers in an appeal by way of case stated, and no very special reason to recall was shown; the Court also upheld that the Authority did not err on s 26B and that there was evidence to support its finding that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand in 2011.
4 Oct 2017

PRIDMORE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 2434

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2434
Court

High Court

The Authority correctly interpreted s 26B and, applying the Greenfield criteria to the material as at April 2011, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he applied for portability; therefore the Authority's decision to decline portability is upheld.
24 Sept 2015

DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 139

Citation

[2015] NZSC 139
Court

Supreme Court

Sections 9 and 10 only qualify the ss 8(b) and (c) residence and presence requirements and do not operate to deem a missionary ordinarily resident in New Zealand for the purposes of s 8(a); ordinary residence is assessed by where the applicant was living and regarded as home at the application date (including intentions and domestic ties), and the appellant was ordinarily resident in Singapore when she applied, so she did not meet s 8(a).
30 May 2014

GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 1199

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1199
Court

High Court

The Authority erred in law in its interpretation and application of ss 7–10 of the NZ Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 by treating s 10 as exclusively determinative of the residence requirements in s 8(b) and (c) and by imposing a requirement that a missionary must show a 'settled life' in New Zealand and that absences are temporary to be ordinarily resident; the issues are fit for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
25 Mar 2014

Richards v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 81
Court

District Court

Appellant was absent from New Zealand for more than six months and failed to prove the dominant purpose of his absence was the duties of his employment within s 17(4); evidence showed the primary purpose was preparing the vessel, sailing and recreation with business activity incidental, therefore he was not ordinarily resident and not covered for the overseas injury.
29 Nov 2013

GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2013] NZHC 3157

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3157
Court

High Court

The Authority erred in law by treating s10 as confined to the s8(b)/(c) presence calculations and by over‑relying on the duration of absences; ordinary residence must be assessed at the time of application and includes consideration of intention to return so that extended absences for missionary work can be temporary for ordinary residence purposes; applying this test the Authority misapplied the law to Mrs Greenfield.
28 Jul 2010

CLARKSON V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV-2010-485-519

Citation

openlaw-d67c63a0_80b7_41a7_87d9_651095fdebfe.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority correctly applied the legal test for "ordinarily resident" by focusing on the appellant's intention and circumstances at the date of application; its conclusion that the appellant was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he applied was a factual finding open on the evidence and did not involve an error of law, so questions 1 and 2 answered No and question 3 answered Yes.
30 Jul 2008

RANKIN V THE SECRETARY OF WAR PENSIONS HC WN CIV-2008-485-382

Citation

openlaw-5eefb331_ee37_4953_b69a_f8f9070beffd.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority did not err in law: for s74P a person must have actually resided in New Zealand to count that time; Western Samoa was not part of New Zealand between 1950 and 1962 under the relevant statutory and historical framework; there was ample evidence to support the Authority's factual finding that the appellant had not been resident in New Zealand for 20 years since age 20, therefore the pension calculation under s74P(1)(b) was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Jun 2007

Donaldson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 128
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the facts were undisputed and the case raises tenable legal questions about the interpretation and interplay of s 24(2) and s 24(4) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 and the effect of tax residency rules (s BB3 and s OE1) on whether overseas remuneration is treated as income derived in New Zealand; those issues are capable of bona fide and serious argument.
23 Sept 2005

AHMADZAI V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2004-404-007105

Citation

openlaw-d5182564_be92_4621_be82_9920e695f65f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Minister erred in law by failing to apply the correct test for ordinary residence (whether the applicant voluntarily adopted New Zealand as his abode for settled purposes) and by giving undue weight to departmental policy about absence durations and to absence as determinative; the decision declining citizenship was not reasonably open on the evidence and is quashed and remitted for reconsideration.