Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v B

[2025] NZHC 3204

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OF RESPONDENT PROHIBITED IN ORDER MADE IN [2025] NZHC 3042 AT [50]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-008

[2025] NZHC 3204

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal by way of a Case State from a determination of the Social Security Appeal Authority at Wellington under s 405 of the Social Security Act 2018

BETWEEN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Appellant

AND

B

Respondent

AND

COMMUNITY LAW CENTRES AOTEAROA

Intervener

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

K M Eckersley and S J Edwards for Appellant B C Hoffman for Respondent

J LW Wass, H E McQueen and J R Rennie for Intervener

Judgment:

24 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(costs) (Anonymous version)

[1]    This is a costs application following a determination of two questions of law by way of case stated. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v B [2025] NZHC 3204 [24 October 2025]

(the Ministry) had appealed, by way of case stated on questions of law1 against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority (the Authority).2 Ms B, the respondent abided the decision of the Court. Mr Hoffman for Ms attended the appeal hearing on a watching brief but did make submissions which were of assistance to the Court. The Community Law Centres Aotearoa (the intervener) was granted leave to intervene and acted as contradictor on the appeal.3 It made submissions and appeared at the hearing.

[2]    The Chief Executive was unsuccessful in the appeal in relation to both questions of law. I sought submissions on costs from the intervener and Ms B.

[3]    In relation to the intervenor, it seeks costs out of the public fund administered by the Ministry of Justice.4 It seeks costs on a 2B basis. The Chief Executive points to the minute dated 15 July 2025, in which La Hood J made several orders relevant to the intervention in this proceeding. This included that there would be no order for costs as between the intervenor and the parties, but that the costs might be sought from the public fund. The Chief Executive therefore takes no position on the application for costs under s 178(2)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

[4]    In view of the fact that there has already been a determination that the no order for costs be made against the parties, it is appropriate that reasonable costs of the intervener be paid from the public fund. The intervenor assisted the Court and in the absence of any apparent contradictor, the leave granted to intervene was appropriate. In those circumstances I make an order under s 178(2)(b) of the Senior Courts Act, that the payment of costs of the intervener be paid by the public fund. Those costs are to be reasonable. I will leave it to the intervener and the Registrar to fix the amount, but in any event it cannot exceed the amount sought in the costs submissions filed by the intervener.

1      Social Security Act 2018 [SSA], s 405.

2      NZSSAA 25/20 [2024] NZSSA 10 [Authority decision].

3      Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v [B] HC Wellington CIV-2025-485-008, 15 July 2025 (Minute of La Hood J).

4      Senior Courts Act 2016, s 178(2)(b).

[5]    In relation to Ms B’s counsel seeking full scale costs, the Chief Executive points out that counsel for Ms B indicated they would take an abide position, only appeared on a watching brief despite giving assistance, and was not the primary contradictor in this case. They noted my comment that Ms B should not be entitled to full scale costs. The Chief Executive submits that Ms B should only be entitled to half share of the 2B costs sought.

[6]    I accept that Ms B was not the only contradictor, but costs usually follow the event and it is appropriate to recognise that the Chief Executive is the unsuccessful appellant and Ms B has incurred costs in appearing in this matter.

[7]    In relation to Ms B’s costs, I award costs at three quarters of the 2B costs claimed and the disbursements incurred amounting to $5,193. That reflects a fair contribution to Ms B’s costs while recognising that she was effectively the successful respondent, the outcome of the appeal was of some importance to her warranting her representation at the appeal, and that Mr Hoffman’s submissions were of assistance to the Court.

Grice J

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant Exeo Legal, Auckland for Respondent

Gilbert Walker, Auckland for Intervener