New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Overpayment of benefits

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2019

PETERS v BENNETT [2019] NZHC 2601

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2601
Court

High Court

The Court ordered the plaintiff to answer specified interrogatories that were directly relevant and not covered by privilege or oppressive (including questions about his application form, contact with MSD re letter dated 18 March 2014, admissions at the 26 July 2017 meeting, the cause of the overpayment where not privileged, identity of media leak if known, and prior refusals to receive 'no surprises' briefings where recollected), because those answers were necessary under HCR 8.38(4); the Court refused to order answers to questions that were privileged, irrelevant or oppressive (including ex…
22 Aug 2016

Harlen v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2016] NZHC 1954

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1954
Court

High Court

The High Court extended time because the delay was explained, did not prejudice the respondent and the applicant acted diligently; however leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise bona fide questions of law of sufficient general or public importance, most issues were fact-specific, the High Court had correctly limited the appeal's scope to whether recovery may occur, and established principle requires rare or unusual circumstances to justify non-recovery of fraudulently incurred social security debt.
4 Sept 2007

Moody v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 211
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because s149(3) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 expressly prohibits appeals to the District Court from review decisions concerning the Code of Claimants' Rights, depriving the Court of jurisdiction to consider the substantive issues, including the overpayment matter previously determined.
22 Sept 2000

Gallagher v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 247
Court

District Court

The appellant did not, on the facts found by the District Court, alter his position in reliance on the overpayment and it was not inequitable to require repayment; therefore remission under s.77(2) was not available and the application for leave to appeal was declined as no question of law arose.
22 Feb 2000

Foss v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 30
Court

District Court

The appellant did not alter her position in reliance on the overpayment because she spent the funds on ordinary day-to-day living without entering long-term commitments or obligations dependent on the payments; therefore the statutory precondition in s77(2) was not met and remission must be refused, so the respondent's decision is upheld.
28 Jul 1994

Ngarangione v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1994] NZACC 33
Court

District Court

Because the appellant received the original payment in good faith but did not alter his position in reliance on any anticipated amount from a later award (he had no knowledge of the amount), the respondent was entitled to recover the identified overpayment by deducting it from the subsequent award; therefore remission under s.77(2) was not justified and the appeal fails.

New Zealand Case Law

PETERS v BENNETT [2019] NZHC 2601

Harlen v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2016] NZHC 1954

Moody v Accident Compensation Corporation

Gallagher v Accident Compensation Corporation

Foss v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Ngarangione v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation