Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development (Recall)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 10/2015
[2015] NZSC 155

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

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	P D McKenzie QC and A J McGurk for Appellant K G Stephen and N E Bailey for Respondent
Judgment:	27 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The appellant has applied to the Court for an order recalling its judgment.[1] The grounds for recall are diffuse but principally suggest that the Court overlooked the appellant's contentions that she lived in Singapore - where she had residency, rented accommodation and paid taxes - only for the purposes of her missionary work and would return to New Zealand when she had completed that work and that she regarded New Zealand as her permanent home.
[1]Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2015] NZSC 139.
The text of the judgment makes it clear that the appellant's position and arguments were understood and addressed. No basis for recall has been put forward. Rather, the application attempts to relitigate the appeal.

Solicitors:

Robert Brace, Porirua for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dawn Lorraine Greenfield has appealed to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development concerning her eligibility for a benefit under the New Zealand Social Welfare and Employment Act. The central issue revolves around whether Ms. Greenfield is considered a resident of New Zealand for the purposes of receiving social benefits while she resides in Singapore for missionary work. The appellant contends that she maintains New Zealand as her permanent home and will return upon completion of her work in Singapore.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Court had properly considered the appellant's contentions regarding her residency status and whether the Court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if Ms. Greenfield's activities and intentions in Singapore were adequately weighed in assessing her residency status for the purposes of receiving social benefits in New Zealand.

The Court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the appellant's arguments were fully understood and addressed in the original judgment. The Court concluded that there was no basis for recalling the judgment as it had properly considered all relevant factors and statutory provisions. The Court emphasised that the application for recall was an attempt to relitigate the appeal rather than establishing a valid ground for recall. As a result, the Court upheld the decision of the lower court, confirming that Ms. Greenfield was not considered a resident of New Zealand for the purposes of the benefit in question.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established