Te Ua v Secretary for War Pensions [2014] NZHC 1476 (27 June 2014)

Last Updated: 30 June 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2014-485-000061 [2014] NZHC 1476

BETWEEN	WALTER HORTON TE UA Plaintiff LYNETTE STANKOVICH Second Plaintiff
AND	SECRETARY FOR WAR PENSIONS First Defendant ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Defendant

Hearing:	(On Papers)
Judgment:	27 June 2014

_{JUDGMENT AS TO REMEDIES OF WHATA J}

[1] In my judgment dated 10 June 2014,¹ I resolved to grant relief in relation to several of the claims made by Father Te Ua in respect of actions by or on behalf of the Secretary for War Pensions.² I directed that the parties confer and, where they were able, reach agreement in terms of the directions that I proposed to make.

[2] Counsel have indicated that they are agreed that the declarations proposed by me are in appropriate terms. They are also in agreement with my direction that the first defendant reconsider Ms Stankovich’s application for reimbursement of outgoings and loss of wages in relation to her travel with Father Te Ua to Palmerston North. The first defendant has also confirmed that he will reconsider the application

_{in accordance with the judgment and the statutory requirements.}

¹ _{Te Ua v Secretary for War Pensions [2014] NZHC 1050.}

² _{Refer paragraphs [211]-[223].}

TE UA v SECRETARY FOR WAR PENSIONS [2014] NZHC 1476 [27 June 2014]

[3] Given the submissions of counsel, I now confirm and make the following declarations:

(a) The time taken to make a decision on the following applications did not satisfy the statutory requirement to make a decision as soon as practicable:

(i) The applications for gout, throat/speech disorders, Pagets disease, thyroidectomy and memory loss dated 10 April 2007;

(ii) The application for reflux and fatty infiltration dated

11 February 2009.

(b) The time taken between the decisions of 10 December 2009 and

9 February 2010 and notification of the decisions dated 11 January

2010 and 26 February 2010 respectively did not satisfy the requirement to notify the applicant forthwith in accordance with s

14(4).

(c) The statement of policy recorded at [104]³ of my judgment is flawed insofar as it purports to require corroborating information where

_{statements of veterans are not supported by information on the service}

³ Paragraph [104] refers to the following statement included in a letter from the

Secretary to Ms Stankovich dated 27 January 2011:

If there is no relevant information on the Service File, and the disability is not consistent with what is known about the role undertaken by the claimant when they were in service and the environment they served in, then any statements that are provided with the claim are considered.

These statements on their own are considered evidence without foundation. This does not in its own right constitute evidence; it only indicates that there is an absence of evidence about the cause of a disability. The War Pensions Claims Panel seek to corroborate these statements by considering whether they are consistent with the other evidence they have available.

file and the disability is not consistent with what is known about the role undertaken by the veteran.

(d) A veteran is entitled to, on request, receive all medical reports that will be before the Claims Panel so that the veteran can include in any submissions on the application, comments about the medical report.

Whata J

Solicitors:

Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt

Crown Law, Wellington