Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

[2012] NZHC 3620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2012-485-1027 [2012] NZHC 3620

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal by way of case stated from the determination of the Social Security Appeal Authority at Wellington under s 12Q of the Social Security Act 1964

BETWEEN  MARGOT CREQUER Appellant

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Respondent

Hearing:         On the papers

Judgment:      21 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]      Ms Crequer wishes to appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority.  On 4 October 2012 I gave a judgment on a preliminary issue about the process for settling the case for the appeal.  Ms Crequer objected to the Authority having substituted the 22 questions of law that she had posed with three questions of law suggested by the Ministry.  In that judgment I ruled that it was for the Authority to determine the case.   I therefore declined to refer the case, as settled by the Authority, back to the Authority as Ms Crequer had sought.

[2]      Ms Crequer now applies under r 7.49 of the High Court Rules to vary or rescind my decision.  By agreement of the parties, the application is to be dealt with on the basis of the detailed written submissions that have been filed.  It is apparent

that considerable time and effort has gone into the submissions that are filed for Ms

CREQUER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV

2012-485-1027 [21 December 2012]

Crequer.   They are, however, directed at disputing the reasons for the judgment I

gave. That is not a basis on which I can grant the application.

[3]      A review of an order, sought under r 7.49, is generally appropriate only:1

(a)       when there was not full argument on the first hearing; or

(b)if some relevant point of evidence was overlooked at the original hearing; or

(c)       there has been a material change of circumstances; or

(d)      some other special circumstance has arisen.

[4]      None  of  the  matters  advanced  on  Ms  Crequer’s  behalf  fall  into  those categories.  Nor is there any matter advanced that satisfies me that it is appropriate to transfer the application to the Court of Appeal.   The questions of law that the Authority’s case poses are those that it views as properly arising from its decision.  If the court hearing the appeal has a different view about that, there is the power to amend the questions at that time.  It is in both parties’ interest that the appeal now proceeds to a substantive hearing.

[5]      The application under r 7.49 is dismissed.

Mallon J

1      Beck and others McGechan on Procedure (looseleaf ed, Brookers) at [7.49.04].