Keelan v General Manager of Veterans' Affairs New Zealand

The plaintiffs in this case are a group of seven Vietnam War veterans who brought proceedings against the General Manager of Veterans' Affairs New Zealand seeking declarations concerning the interpretation and application of the War Pensions Act 1954 and the Veterans' Support Act 2014. The veterans sought nine declarations in total, which covered a range of issues including the application of the "Te Ua principles" to the new legislation, the entitlement to reconsideration of decisions, and the requirement of a definitive diagnosis before a decision-maker can proceed to consider causation or aggravation by qualifying service. The court was required to decide whether the declarations sought were appropriate and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations they had applied for.

The court found that the declarations sought were not appropriate for a number of reasons. Firstly, the War Pensions Act had been repealed and replaced by the Veterans' Support Act 2014, which had its own scheme and presumptions. The court held that it was not appropriate to read back provisions from the old Act into the new one, and that the new Act should be interpreted on its own terms. Secondly, the court held that the declarations sought were either too vague or not necessary, as the new Act was capable of standing on its own and did not require the court to provide a blueprint for its implementation. Thirdly, the court held that the declarations sought were either hypothetical or not relevant to the plaintiffs, as all of them were already at their maximum pension entitlement and had no live issues under the new Act.

In conclusion, the court declined all the applications for declaration. The defendant was entitled to costs on a 2B scale together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if required.