New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Temporary additional support

Legal area

Court

4 Nov 2021

LILLIAN ALICE TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT) [2021] NZSC 148

Citation

[2021] NZSC 148
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal is refused because the core substantive grievance about the Ministry's general use of the Powerswitch calculator was not decided by the Courts below and the applicant failed to identify any error of law in the Court of Appeal decision; meanwhile procedural interlocutory relief was unnecessary or without basis, although extension of time and amendment of the leave application were granted.
23 Jul 2021

TAYLOR v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2021] NZCA 329

Citation

[2021] NZCA 329
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the operative October 2016 decision was properly reviewable and was lawfully made because the Ministry considered relevant matters, did not fetter its discretion, and appropriately applied the 15% methodology endorsed by prior judicial decisions; the September 2016 decision was spent and cannot be re‑litigated; the MAP/Powerswitch internal guidance is not binding; although a telephone hearing was undesirable for an unrepresented litigant, no miscarriage of justice resulted such as to warrant setting aside the decision.
22 Jul 2019

TAYLOR v THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY [2019] NZHC 1718

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1718
Court

High Court

Claims against the Minister, Consumer NZ and the Ombudsman are struck out: Minister and Consumer NZ because no reviewable exercise of public power or reasonable prospect on pleaded facts; Ombudsman because statutory immunity in ss 25 and 26 bars judicial review of decision not to investigate. Claims against the Authority that collaterally attack its April 2015 decision are struck out as abuse of process; remaining challenges to Authority pre-hearing direction and to the Ministry (notably alleged fettering by applying a 15% methodology without reconsideration) are not struck out and may procee…
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.
7 Oct 2016

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZCA 489

Citation

[2016] NZCA 489
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the issues advanced were challenges to the Ministry's factual and administrative assessment methods rather than questions of law of general or public importance or issues raising a real risk of miscarriage of justice; the Appeal Authority was not required to use the Powerswitch calculator and the High Court did not err in upholding the Authority's approach.
19 Aug 2016

MURPHY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 1951

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1951
Court

High Court

The Authority and Chief Executive correctly applied s61G and Schedule 2: loan repayments cannot be included as allowable essential costs because the financed items are not within Schedule 2 categories and no written evidence of agreed period or revolving credit arrangements was provided; accordingly the Authority did not err in law and temporary additional support was correctly declined.
1 Jun 2016

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 1160

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1160
Court

High Court

The Authority acted within its statutory discretion under s69C and the Regulations, was not legally required to follow the Ministry's MaP Powerswitch step mechanically, and its factual evaluative judgment fixing additional power costs at 15% was supported by evidence and not obviously wrong, so the questions of law are answered in favour of the Authority's methodology and conclusion.
22 Feb 2013

THOMPSON V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC TAU CIV-2012-485-001531

Citation

openlaw-23ebd540_c6d7_453e_81d5_644f789f6cf8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive’s discretion under s69C(1) is capped by Schedule 19 so no payment above $59.12; the appellant’s physiotherapy did not qualify as a disability-related expense because the disability was not shown to be likely to continue six months and treatment was available via public health, so those costs were not allowable for temporary additional support; statutory/regulatory deductions and the exclusion of Sky subscription under the Regulations were correctly applied, therefore the appellant was not entitled to ongoing temporary additional support as at 18 July 2011.