Crequer v District Court [2015] NZHC 3180 (11 December 2015)

Last Updated: 20 April 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-587 [2015] NZHC 3180

BETWEEN	DAVID OWEN CREQUER Appellant
AND	DISTRICT COURT Original Respondent
AND	MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent in Substitution

Hearing:	3 December 2015
Counsel:	Mr Crequer self represented N Bailey for Ministry of Social Development
Judgment:	11 December 2015

_{JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J}

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Neave in the District

Court.¹

[2] The background to that judgment is Mr Crequer’s challenge to a decision of a

_{District Court Registrar made under s 86H of the Social Security Act 1964.}

¹ _{Crequer v Ministry of Social Development [2015] NZDC 1349 [15 July 2015].}

CREQUER v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 3180 [11 December 2015]

[3] The Registrar had refused to vary or discharge a Deduction Notice issued in relation to Mr Crequer’s debt with Work and Income, a service line of the respondent Ministry.

[4] Mr Crequer’s challenge was dismissed on the basis that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The Judge thought the Registrar’s decision could only be reviewed in the High Court, by way of judicial review, and the parties were offered the opportunity of transfer to the High Court, for that purpose.

[5] That did not happen, which meant that Mr Crequer was left with an appeal against the judgment that the District Court had no jurisdiction. There is a general right of appeal from a decision of the District Court to the High Court.

[6] Mr Crequer says that the Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss an application for want of jurisdiction.

[7] Written submissions have been made by both parties.

[8] Had this appeal proceeded to a full hearing, a central issue would have been whether the District Court Rules allow for review of the Registrar’s decision as Mr Crequer contends.

[9] Meanwhile, out of Court, the Ministry reconsidered its position and identified its errors in relation to the debt that was the subject of the Deduction Notice. The facts as originally considered by the Registrar no longer applied.

[10] Having identified the error, the Ministry advised Mr Crequer, apologised for the delay in reaching the correct position, and offered to remedy its error by making a refund.

[11] Thus, at a practical level, the Ministry, through Ms Bailey of Crown Law Office, says that there is no point in the appeal being heard because even if Mr Crequer was successful and the proceedings were sent back to the District Court for hearing, or this Court simply assumed the case for itself, the result would be

exactly as the Ministry now accepts, without the need for a Court Order. As

Ms Bailey puts it:

That is, the Deduction Notice no longer exists as the Ministry recalculated

Mr Crequer is owed a refund, as opposed to owing the Ministry any money.

[12] When Mr Crequer advised the Crown Law Office of his bank account, the money owed to him would be deposited.

Disposition

[13] In a teleconference which was convened to address the future of the appeal, all this was discussed with Mr Crequer and Ms Bailey, and that the Ministry recognised that he was right all along. No doubt he considers he should not have been put to all this trouble, but he has been vindicated.

[14] Whether or not the District Court was right in concluding that it had no jurisdiction is therefore an issue which is of historical and perhaps legal interest, but no more. Even if Mr Crequer succeeded in his legal jurisdictional argument, about which the Court has reservations, then the best result would be that which has now been achieved in practical, and formal terms, by the Ministry adjusting its sights, and advising the Court of this.

[15] In these circumstances, there is no purpose in the appeal, but there is purpose in recording clearly that Mr Crequer was right all along in bringing his challenge to the Registrar’s decision, and the Ministry’s error, as it turned out to be.

[16] Where a party has achieved the result of litigation out of Court, then there is no point in the proceedings continuing unless there is an issue of principle at stake, and there is no such issue here. The appeal no longer has any purpose. This was discussed with Mr Crequer and Ms Bailey.

[17] This Judgment thus records the position that was reached, and in these circumstances the appeal is dismissed.

[18] I can identify no issue of costs which the Court should address. If there is an issue, the parties should advise me within seven days. They must first communicate with each other as there is no reason for reference back to the Court that I can identify.

.................................
Nicholas Davidson J

Solicitors:

David Crequer self represented Appellant

Crown Law (Wellington) for the Ministry of Social Development