Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 10/2015
[2015] NZSC 57

BETWEEN	DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	P D McKenzie QC and A J McGurk for Applicant M J Andrews and N Bailey for Respondent
Judgment:	11 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611).

BThe approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Robert Brace, Porirua for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dawn Lorraine Greenfield sought leave to appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal which had dismissed her appeal against a decision of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development. The primary issue was whether Ms Greenfield was "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" for the purposes of receiving a New Zealand Superannulation under section 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. This determination was crucial as it affected her eligibility for the benefit. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the phrase "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" in the context of the Act. The Court of Appeal had held that Ms Greenfield was not ordinarily resident in New Zealand because she had not established a sufficient degree of physical presence in the country.

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of the term "ordinarily resident" and considered the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute, as well as relevant case law. It was noted that the term "ordinarily resident" was not defined in the Act and therefore the court had to rely on its ordinary meaning. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the phrase was correct and that Ms Greenfield had not satisfied the residency requirement for the purposes of receiving the benefit. The Court held that the term "ordinarily resident" required a degree of physical presence in New Zealand that Ms Greenfield had not established. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the phrase "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court granted Ms Greenfield leave to appeal and allowed the appeal on the ground that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly interpreted the phrase "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" in section 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. The Court remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court of Appeal was directed to consider whether Ms Greenfield had satisfied the residency requirement for the purposes of receiving the benefit. The Supreme Court did not make any orders as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established