[1] On 21 February 2018, the Attorney-General filed a memorandum advising the parties could not agree final quantum. Counsel then set out VANZ’s proposed approach to assessing quantum which resulted in an award of $366,524.03 plus costs (which were agreed).

[21 In a memorandum dated 21 February 2018, Mr Edwards’ counsel advised he disputed three aspects of the assessment. In a further memorandum dated 23 February 2018, Mr Edwards contested the basis of the Secretary’s s 23 War Pensions Act 1954 (the Act) assessment undertaken in 2000-2001.

[3] It is unnecessary for me to rehearse these matters in any detail. Instead I set out briefly my view as follows:

(a)I do not accept the suggestion that the additional s 23 pension of 10 per cent, granted as from l July 1989, should be increased to 60 per cent from the date of s 23 assessment in 2000-2001. This is because:

EDWARDS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 300 [1 March 2018]

(i)Mr Edwards was assessed for a s 23 pension in July 2000 and June 2001 and a 10 per cent increase was found to be appropriate in both assessments. VANZ holistically assessed his quality of life. I am in no position in an application for judicial review to substitute my view for that of VANZ, even if I agreed with Mr Edwards’ submissions.

In any event, this particular challenge was not raised by Mr Edwards in his application for judicial review. The focus of the review was on the correct baclc payment date, not on the s 23 entitlement. I therefore doubt I have jurisdiction to make the adjustment argued for anyway.

(iii) VANZ’s approach has been to apply pension rates in 2017 dollars to the entire period 1966 to 2000. This has a benevolent effect. Any issue over the s 23 pension must be considered in the round and balanced against the benefit that Mr Edwards has derived from VANZ adopting 2017 pension rates in its calculations.

(b)VANZ deducted $25,475.48 to account for the pension already paid to Mr Edwards over the period of 8 October 1997 to 29 November 2000. VANZ was correct to deduct this sum. It was not, as Mr Edwards seems to misapprehend, a deduction for overpayment.

Result

[4] I am satisfied that the quantum proposed by VANZ is appropriate in the circumstances. I make that award accordingly together with costs as agreed.

Williams J
Solicitors:
Legal Consultants Limited, Auckland for Applicant Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Attorney-General [2018] NZHC 300
Case: [2018] NZHC 300
Decision Date: 1 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patrick Jeffrey Edwards brought a claim against the Attorney-General in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, challenging the quantum of a pension payment awarded to him under the War Pensions Act 1954. The court was tasked with determining whether the additional pension of 10 per cent granted from July 1989 should be increased to 60 per cent from the date of the Secretary's assessment in 2000-2001, and whether a deduction made by the Veterans' Affairs New Zealand (VANZ) was appropriate. The court also needed to decide whether it had jurisdiction to alter the pension rate as suggested by Mr Edwards.

The court found that it could not accept the suggestion to increase the pension rate to 60 per cent. This was based on the fact that Mr Edwards had been assessed for a 10 per cent pension in July 2000 and June 2001, and that any change to the pension rate would require a holistic assessment of his quality of life, which was outside the scope of judicial review. The court also determined that the challenge to the pension rate was not raised in the application for judicial review, and therefore, it was doubtful that the court had jurisdiction to make the adjustment. Additionally, the court held that VANZ was correct in its approach to applying pension rates in 2017 dollars to the entire period from 1966 to 2000, which had a benevolent effect on Mr Edwards. The deduction made by VANZ was also deemed appropriate as it accounted for the pension already paid to Mr Edwards.

The court concluded that the quantum proposed by VANZ was appropriate and made that award accordingly, along with the agreed costs. The final orders were made in favour of the Attorney-General, and the applicant's challenge to the quantum of the pension payment was dismissed.

Orders