Motu v Chief Excutive of the Ministry of Social Development [2018] NZHC 4 (16 January 2018)

Last Updated: 8 February 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-485-381 [2018] NZHC 4

BETWEEN	ARETA REREKAU TANARA MOTU MANGAI UHUUHU RANSFIELD Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Hearing:	26 October 2017
Appearances:	Mr A R T M M U Ransfield, the Applicant in person K M Hutchinson and O J G Upperton for the Respondent
Judgment:	16 January 2018

_{JUDGMENT OF PALMER J}

This judgment is delivered by me on 16 January 2018 at 2.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

........................................... Registrar/Deputy Registrar

_{Applicant in person}

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4 [16

January 2018]

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington

Summary

[1] Mr Ransfield applies for leave to appeal a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority (SSAA) out of time. He was busy finding a place to stay and he wants to argue the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) should pay him for what he says are consequential losses due to the form in which it gave him a grant. I am not as confident as the SSAA that it had no jurisdiction to consider the matter. But I consider it is highly likely there is no merit in Mr Ransfield’s appeal. If there is, it can better be considered in the general proceedings he has already commenced. I decline the application.

What happened

Mr Ransfield

[2] Mr Ransfield is a long-term client of MSD. In October 2006, he was served with a trespass order after threatening to go to a MSD appointment with a gun and then yelling at the appointment. He was dealt with by MSD’s Remote Client Unit (RCU) which deals with clients who cannot access services through their local Work and Income service centre. The trespass order has been regularly renewed since then, as has Mr Ransfield’s status with the RCU. On 18 September 2015, the RCU Review Panel decided Mr Ransfield was ready to return to accessing Work and Income services through his local service centre.

Grant application

[3] On 16 June 2015, Mr Ransfield applied for a grant, saying:

I have to pay a phone bill of $90.00, and I need some money for food. I will only be able to pay about $60.00. I need also $40.00 to replace my lost license to exempt [indecipherable] my vehicle for 12 months.

[4] MSD held a telephone interview with Mr Ransfield. On 18 June 2015 Work and Income recorded this as an application for $100 for food with the reason given as:

I am behind on my phone bill payments. I am making arrangements to pay this with Slingshot but now don’t have enough food money for the week. My wallet [has] gone and contained my licence, bank cards and payment card. I have also had to reapply for my licence which is $40.00 so am extra short.

[5] Work and Income granted Mr Ransfield $100 via a payment card that could only be used to buy food. On 19 June 2015, MSD returned Mr Ransfield’s call about this. An MSD file note states:

Assisted client with $100 food grant as he had a couple of urgent bills which needed paying. Client was confused and tried to use the payment card to pay a bill, rather than at the supermarket for food. Client now understands and have advised to use the card asap as it expires on the 21 June.

Reviews and appeals

[6] On 17 December 2015, Mr Ransfield applied for a review of MSD’s decision on the basis he had requested $40.00 for renewal of his driver’s licence, not a food grant. Mr Ransfield also complained the failure to make the $40.00 payment led to him being unable to pay his telephone and internet service account, leading to them being cut off and ultimately the loss of electrical services, equating to debts in excess of $500.

[7] On 12 May 2016, the Chief Executive’s internal review was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Ransfield had an immediate need to renew his driver’s licence. It overturned the decision not to pay for the licence to the value of $40.00 as a recoverable Special Needs Grant, it paid that amount into Mr Ransfield’s bank account and agreed to apologise. The internal review does not appear to have addressed the question of consequential losses.

[8] Mr Ransfield then further complained to the Benefits Review Committee. He provided the Committee with documentation indicating his debts with Baycorp, following the loss of telephone, internet and electrical services, amounted to $819.37. The matter proceeded to the Benefits Review Committee. On 11 July 2016, the Committee noted Mr Ransfield had an immediate need to renew his licence and that was an essential need, to maintain the car and for his job searching. The Committee agreed the decision to grant $100 for food was correct and the decision to decline an advance payment of benefit of $40.00 was incorrect and noted it had already been

overturned. The Committee declined to address the consequential loss aspect of Mr

Ransfield’s argument as it was not part of the decision the Committee was reviewing.

[9] Mr Ransfield appealed the Committee’s decision to the Social Security Appeal Authority. In its decision of 8 March 2017, the Authority could identify “only one decision potentially within the Authority’s jurisdiction under ss 12I and 12J” which was “the decision not to provide a Special Needs Grant of $40 on 17 June 2015” and noted that had already been reversed.¹ The Authority concluded it did not have jurisdiction relating to the consequential effects on Mr Ransfield of not receiving the grant at the time he applied for it.²

This application

[10] On 19 April 2017 Mr Ransfield applied for leave to appeal the Authority’s decision 29 days out of time. On the first call of his application, in June 2017, Faire J suggested to Mr Ransfield he might like to investigate pursuing the relief he was seeking as a general proceeding rather than as an appeal. He filed a general proceeding on 3 July 2017, raising similar issues to those raised on this appeal. Crown Law has applied to strike out the general proceeding. That application has a fixture of 19

February 2018.

The relevant law

[11] Under s 12Q of the Social Security Act 1964, any party to proceedings before the Authority may appeal to the High Court on a question of law only, within 14 days of the decision. On application, the High Court has a discretion to extend the period. As Downs J has summarised:³

(a) the overarching inquiry is whether the justice of the case requires the individual being given the opportunity to appeal;

¹ Re Ransfield [2017] NZSSAA 4 at [21].

² At [21]–[23].

³ Luckman v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2017] NZHC 629 at [15].

(b) the reasons for failure to bring a timely appeal and any prejudice to the

Ministry are important considerations; and

(c) time should only be extended if the applicant can identify an arguable question of law.

Submissions

[12] Mr Ransfield says his application of 19 April was late because he understood he had 20 or 21 working days to appeal from 8 March (which would have been expired on 6 April 2017), rather than 14 days, and he was busy finding a place to stay. Mr Upperton, for the Crown, submits the application should be dismissed because the appeal lacks any merit, there is no arguable question of law, and the reasons for delay speak against granting leave.

Should Mr Ransfield be granted leave to appeal out of time?

[13] Mr Ransfield’s reasons for being out of time with his appeal are not compelling. Whether leave should be granted comes down to whether there is an arguable question of law and whether the justice of the case requires him having the opportunity to appeal.

[14] I am not as confident as the Authority that it had no jurisdiction whatsoever to consider Mr Ransfield’s appeal. As it noted, it had jurisdiction under s 12M(7) to “confirm, modify or reverse the decision or determination appealed against”. It considered that was the decision not to provide the $40.00. But, as he points out, Mr Ransfield was appealing the decision to provide him with funds in a form he could not use to pay for a driver’s licence. While he was subsequently provided with the funds in the form he could use for that purpose, that did not address the problems Mr Ransfield says derived from the original decision. The Authority could potentially have considered whether to modify the original decision.

[15] But it is difficult to see what more the Authority could reasonably have done. Mr Ransfield seeks $819.37 on the basis MSD’s decision meant he spent money on his driver’s licence that he otherwise would have spent on his phone and the pressure

on his funds enticed him to accept a power company’s attractive offer on a mistaken basis. Even if the Authority were to stretch the definition of “modify” to include a grant for consequential losses, these losses cannot be reasonably regarded as consequential on MSD’s decision. Accordingly, I consider it is highly likely there is no merit in Mr Ransfield’s appeal. If there were, the substantive relief he seeks is better considered in the general proceeding he has filed.

Result

[16] I decline the application for leave to appeal the Authority’s decision out of time. Because I consider there was an arguable error regarding jurisdiction but there was, nevertheless, no merit in the appeal, costs will lie where they fell.

Palmer J