Edwards v Ministry of Social Development

Case [2018] NZHC 1792


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-419-000070

CRI-2016-019-002837 [2018] NZHC 1792

BETWEEN

ALVINA JEAN EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Respondent

Hearing: 19 July 2018

Counsel:

L J R Wilkins for Appellant M L Dillon for Respondent

Judgment:

19 July 2018


JUDGMENT (No 2) OF PAUL DAVISON J


This judgment was delivered by me on 19 July 2018 at 1:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

EDWARDS v MSD Judgment No 2 [2018] NZHC 1792 [19 July 2018]

[1]    In my judgment of 13 June 2018 I indicated my intention to grant Ms Edwards’ application for discharge pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, subject to being satisfied regarding a repayment plan by her pursuant to which she was to propose terms which would repay the full amount within a reasonable period.1

[2]    Ms Edwards has filed an affidavit setting out the basis upon which she proposed to repay the full amount from her income over a period of four years. The proposal is supported by a repayment plan prepared with the assistance of a financial mentor of the Hamilton Budgeting Advisory Trust. Also attached to Ms Edwards’ affidavit is correspondence from a Collections Officer of Work and Income confirming that the proposed repayment plan is acceptable to Work and Income’s Collections Unit.

[3]    Mr Dillon, for the Ministry, advises that he accepts that Ms Edwards has made a realistic commitment to repay the full amount of reparation having regard to her financial position and resources.

[4]    I am satisfied that Ms Edwards’ proposal, supported by her undertaking to the Court to contribute at least 20 per cent of her net post-tax income to reparation of the outstanding sum, is a satisfactory basis upon which to confirm my indication.

[5]    I therefore make an order discharging Ms Edwards pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.


Paul Davison J


1      Edwards v Ministry of Social Development [2018] NZHC 1404.

Details
AGLC
Edwards v Ministry of Social Development [2018] NZHC 1792
Case
[2018] NZHC 1792
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alvina Jean Edwards appealed against a decision by the Ministry of Social Development in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. The primary issue was whether Ms Edwards' proposed repayment plan, aimed at repaying the full amount of reparation within a reasonable period, was acceptable under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to determine if the repayment plan was realistic and aligned with her financial position and resources. Additionally, the court needed to verify if the repayment plan was acceptable to Work and Income’s Collections Unit.

The court considered Ms Edwards' affidavit and the repayment plan prepared with the assistance of a financial mentor from the Hamilton Budgeting Advisory Trust. The affidavit detailed a four-year plan to repay the full amount from her income. Supporting this, a Collections Officer from Work and Income confirmed the plan's acceptability. Mr Dillon, representing the Ministry, accepted that Ms Edwards had made a realistic commitment to repay the full amount given her financial situation. The court was satisfied that Ms Edwards' proposal, including her commitment to contribute at least 20 per cent of her net post-tax income to the repayment, was satisfactory. Therefore, the court confirmed the discharge of Ms Edwards under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The final order of the court was to discharge Ms Edwards, in line with the Sentencing Act 2002. This decision was based on the satisfactory nature of the repayment plan and the commitment shown by Ms Edwards to repay the full amount within a reasonable period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.