Edwards v Attorney-General

[2018] NZHC 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-514

[2018] NZHC 300

BETWEEN AND

PATRICK JEFFREY EDWARDS

Applicant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing: Counsel:

Judgment:

24 & 28 February 2017

E T Midlane for Applicant

R Roff and I S Auld for Respondent 1 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Final Ruling and Orders

[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