Attorney-General v IDEA Services Ltd - [2012] NZHC 3229

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2011-485-1562

CIV 2011-485-2052 [2012] NZHC 3229

UNDER The Human Rights Act 1993

BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Appellant

ANDIDEA SERVICES LIMITED (IN STATUTORY MANAGEMENT) Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2012-4 May 2012
Additional submissions on 31 May and 18 June 2012
Memorandum of counsel of 26 November 2012

Counsel: M Coleman and G J Robins for the Appellant
A S Butler, O C Gascoigne and P Barnett for the Respondent

Judgment: 3 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J,

MS J GRANT MNZM AND MS S INESON QSM

Contents

Overview ............................................................................................................................................ [1] The facts ............................................................................................................................................. [8] What is a disability? ....................................................................................................................... [8]
An intellectual disability................................................................................................................. [9] Disability Support Services .......................................................................................................... [10] Day services ................................................................................................................................. [11] Funding for disability services ..................................................................................................... [13] Appropriations.............................................................................................................................. [19] Present funding responsibilities as between government bodies .................................................. [22]

The MOH funder/provider arrangements ..................................................................................... [24]

The contract with IDEA Services.................................................................................................. [29] The contract with NASC ............................................................................................................... [33] Back on budget ............................................................................................................................. [34] The MOH’s decision ..................................................................................................................... [36] Explanation for the SMT decision ................................................................................................ [38] Financial effect of SMT decision .................................................................................................. [42] Preliminary issue no 1: Breach of contract ................................................................................... [44]

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH V IDEA SERVICES LIMITED (IN STATUTORY MANAGEMENT) HC WN CIV 2011-485-1562 [3 December 2012]

The issue ....................................................................................................................................... [44] The Tribunal’s decision................................................................................................................. [45] MOH submissions......................................................................................................................... [50] IDEA Services submissions .......................................................................................................... [53] Our assessment ............................................................................................................................. [55] Preliminary issue no 2: Who is the claim made against ............................................................... [58] The issue ....................................................................................................................................... [58] The Tribunal’s decision................................................................................................................. [59] The submissions............................................................................................................................ [61] Our assessment ............................................................................................................................. [65] The pleading ................................................................................................................................. [70] Preliminary issue no 3: did the MOH have funding responsibility?........................................... [75] The issue ....................................................................................................................................... [75] The Tribunal’s decision................................................................................................................. [76] Submissions .................................................................................................................................. [77] Consideration given to who should have funding responsibility – pre the NZPHD Act ............... [78] Funding responsibilities post the NZPHD Act.............................................................................. [91] Summary ..................................................................................................................................... [121] Discrimination ............................................................................................................................... [124] The statutory test for discrimination .......................................................................................... [124] The relevant comparison ............................................................................................................ [126]
A) The Tribunal’s decision .......................................................................................................... [128] B) The submissions ..................................................................................................................... [129] Our assessment ........................................................................................................................... [134] Differential treatment on the basis of age................................................................................... [141] A) The Tribunal’s decision .......................................................................................................... [142]
B) Submissions ........................................................................................................................... [143]
C) Our assessment ...................................................................................................................... [146] Material disadvantage................................................................................................................ [160] A) The legal test .......................................................................................................................... [160] B) The Tribunal’s decision .......................................................................................................... [162] C) Submissions ........................................................................................................................... [163] D) Our assessment...................................................................................................................... [164]
Justification.................................................................................................................................... [165] The statutory test ........................................................................................................................ [165] Was the SMT decision “prescribed by law”? ............................................................................. [167] A) The issue ................................................................................................................................ [167] B) The Tribunal’s decision .......................................................................................................... [168] C) The submissions ..................................................................................................................... [171] D) Our assessment...................................................................................................................... [174] Reasonable and justified............................................................................................................. [194] A) Deference ............................................................................................................................... [196] Did the SMT decision serve a purpose sufficiently important to justify curtailment of the right to be free from discrimination? ........................................................................................................... [206] Was the SMT decision rationally connected to its purpose?....................................................... [218] Did the SMT decision impair the right to be free from age-related discrimination no more than reasonably necessary for its…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General v IDEA Services Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 3229
Decision Date: 3 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, IDEA Services Limited, a provider of day services for people with intellectual disabilities, brought a claim against the Ministry of Health (MOH) alleging that the MOH breached the Human Rights Act 1993 by refusing to fund day services for people with intellectual disabilities who were over the age of 65. The MOH appealed the Tribunal's decision that there was a breach of Part 1A of the HRA and the award of costs in favour of IDEA Services. The Court dismissed the MOH's appeal and found that the SMT decision breached Part 1A of the HRA. The Court also found that the Tribunal's award of costs was too high and substituted it with an award of $115,000.

The legal issues in this case were whether the MOH breached its contract with IDEA Services, whether the MOH had funding responsibility for day services for people with intellectual disabilities over the age of 65, and whether the SMT decision was discriminatory and justified. The Court found that the SMT decision did not breach the contract between IDEA Services and the MOH and that the MOH did have funding responsibility for day services for people with intellectual disabilities over the age of 65. The Court also found that the SMT decision was discriminatory and not justified.

The Court's reasoning was based on the principles of the HRA and the NZBORA. The Court found that the MOH's decision to stop funding day services for people with intellectual disabilities over the age of 65 was discriminatory because it distinguished persons on the basis of age, which is a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Court also found that the MOH's decision was not justified under s 5 of the NZBORA because it was not prescribed by law and was not a reasonable and justified limit on the right to be free from age-related discrimination. The Court also found that the Tribunal's award of costs was too high because it took into account second counsel when that was already accounted for in its 30 per cent of actual costs calculation and it took the upper boundary of High Court 3C costs as $165,000 when it was not. The Court substituted the Tribunal's award with an award of $115,000.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal is dismissed and that the Tribunal's award of costs is substituted with an award of $115,000. IDEA Services is entitled to an award of costs on a category 3C basis.

Orders