Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2014] NZHC 1199 (30 May 2014)

Last Updated: 5 June 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-002305 [2014] NZHC 1199

UNDER	the Social Security Act 1964
IN THE MATTER	of an appeal by way of case stated from a determination of the Social Security Appeal Authority under s 12Q of the Social Security Act 1964
BETWEEN	DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD Appellant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Judgment: 30 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J [Leave to Appeal]

[1] The application for leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time is granted by consent.

[2] In my judgment of 29 November 2013 I answered three questions posed by the Social Security Appeal Authority (the Authority). Those questions involved issues relating to the meaning of aspects of ss 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (the Act).

[3] The three questions posed by the Authority were:

(1) Did the Authority err in law when holding s 10 of the Act as directed towards determining residence requirements in s 8(b) and (c) of the

_Act?

GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZHC 1199 [30 May 2014]

(2) Did the Authority err in law by holding that a missionary must show that her settled life is in New Zealand and absences from New Zealand are temporary, in order to be considered “ordinarily resident” in New Zealand?

(3) Did the Authority err in law in its application of the meaning of

“ordinarily resident in New Zealand” to Mrs Greenfield’s situation?

[4] I answered all three questions “Yes”.

[5] I am satisfied that the issues raised by the questions I answered meet the criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[6] The questions which the Court of Appeal is invited to consider are whether I

erred in law when I answered any of the questions set out in paragraph [3] above.

_{[7] Costs are reserved.}

_{D B Collins J}

Solicitors:

Robert Brace, Porirua for Appellant

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent