Meek v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
[2016] NZHC 967
•13 May 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2015-485-820
[2016] NZHC 967
UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972 BETWEEN
STUART JAMES MEEK
Applicant
AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
Applicant in Person
N Bailey for Respondent
Judgment:
13 May 2016
JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J
I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
2.30 pm on the 13th day of May 2016
MEEK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 967 [13 May 2016]
[1] Mr Meek has filed a claim in judicial review against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). His claim broadly relates to the service he received from MSD following the Christchurch earthquakes, and his subsequent move to the Wellington area. To say that the earthquakes and their aftermath have been extremely distressing for Mr Meek would be a gross understatement.
[2] On 27 January 2016 MSD filed an application to strike out Mr Meek’s claim on the basis that:
(a)it discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action; and
(b)it is frivolous or vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
[3] On 2 February 2016 I directed that Mr Meek respond to the strike-out application, either by filing a formal notice of opposition, advising the Court that he wishes to oppose on the basis of the material already filed by him, or advising that he wishes to discontinue. He did not respond in any of these ways. Rather, he continued to bombard the Registry with highly emotive emails. On 16 March I directed that if there was no response by 23 March, then I would determine the strike-out application on the papers.
[4] Mr Meek continued to email the Registry as before. His emails only very tangentially related to the strike-out. On 5 April 2016 I advised that I would determine the matter on the papers and that Mr Meek’s emails would be taken as expressing his position in that regard. Counsel for MSD then filed formal submissions. Mr Meek sent two further emails.
Background
[5] Mr Meek’s pleaded account of the facts underlying his claim is not especially coherent, so the following background is largely taken from the Crown’s affidavit evidence (which is based on the documentary record and has not been disputed) and submissions.
[6] Following the Canterbury earthquake in February 2011 Mr Meek moved from Christchurch to Wellington. He initially stayed with a friend before moving into his own accommodation. On 22 March 2011, Mr Meek went to the Naenae Service Centre and asked that Work and Income pay him $2,038.00 for relocation and storage costs for his household items, and $472.50 for accommodation costs for his stay in Hanmer Springs on route to Wellington.
[7] Mr Meek was told at that meeting that he had not established an immediate or essential need and that his applications were declined. It is accepted that there was, however, some delay in sending out a letter formally advising him of this.
[8] After the meeting, Mr Meek’s accommodation supplement and special benefit were cancelled because he had informed Work and Income that he had no accommodation costs at that time. But he was later granted both an accommodation supplement and a special benefit backdated to 17 March 2011 by the Naenae Service Centre.
[9] On 16 June 2011 Work and Income received a phone call from Mr Meek’s insurer advising that it would be paying $1,104.00 towards his relocation costs.
[10] On 27 June 2011 Mr Meek received $2,311.74 in advance payment of benefit for relocation costs, rent/letting fees and bond, in relation to his move to Wellington.
[11] In August 2013, Mr Meek received an ex gratia payment of $2,000 for what MSD determined were service failures on its part. The service failures related to the delay in informing Mr Meek that his initial application for relocation and accommodation costs had been declined. He was also advised that MSD would not seek to recover his debt of $2,311.74 arising from the advance payment for relocation costs, rent/letting fee and bond.
[12] Mr Meek received a letter of apology from Work and Income in relation to the service failures, dated 4 December 2013.
[13] On 23 October 2014, Mr Meek filed what appear to have been negligence proceedings against MSD in the District Court. The claim related to the service failures to which I have referred, alleging that he had lost the opportunity to claim insurance payments, and that they had caused his mental health to deteriorate.
[14]On 5 August 2015, Judge Hastings struck out Mr Meek’s claim.
[15] In the meantime, on 28 July 2015, Mr Meek challenged MSD’s decision to decline a clothing grant application he had made, utilising the review and appeals process in the Social Security Act 1964 (the SSA). On 16 October 2015, the Benefits Review Committee (BRC) overturned MSD’s decision. On 6 November 2015, MSD approved the payment for clothing.
[16] On 17 December 2015 MSD sent a letter to Mr Meek, informing him that his application for advance payment for firewood was declined, and that he could review the decision to decline using the statutory process. MSD apologised that Mr Meek had not been advised of that decision earlier.
Mr Meek’s application for review
[17] Mr Meek’s claim is not clearly or coherently pleaded. However, it appears that he challenges the following:
(a)the decision in March to decline his application for relocation and accommodation costs; and relating to this:
(i)the delay in informing him of this outcome;
(ii)the insufficiency of the compensation granted in relation to this;
(iii)the fact that he was unable to get insurance as a result of the delay; and
(iv)the emotional harm caused by the delay, including mental health issues.
(b)other decisions of MSD:
(i)granting him a recoverable advance payment of benefit, instead of issuing him a non-recoverable civil defence payment for costs associated with his move to Wellington;
(ii)declining his application for a clothing grant; and
(iii)declining his application for an advance payment for firewood; and
(c)his having not “been allowed” to appeal in respect of the above decisions.
[18]The relief sought by Mr Meek is, so far as it is discernible:
(a)recognition of the humiliation and hardship he has suffered;
(b)that MSD staff are held accountable;
(c)payment of fair compensation; and
(d)that the debt he owes MSD is wiped.
[19] As I have said, the grounds for strike-out advanced by MSD is that Mr Meek’s statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, and that it is frivolous, vexatious, and otherwise an abuse of process. I need consider only the first ground.
No reasonably arguable cause of action
[20] The rules and principles governing applications to strike-out are well known and I do not propose to set them out here.1
1 See generally rule 15.1 of the High Court Rules and the decision in Attorney-General v Prince and Gardener [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267.
[21] The first and fundamental point is that the claim as pleaded is very difficult to understand and does not clearly set out any cause of action at all. As I have said, the facts relied on by Mr Meek are far from clear from the claim, and I have been required to rely significantly on MSD’s account of his interactions with Work and Income. I nonetheless attempt to address the claims as I understand them to be.
The March decision and delay in informing Mr Meek
[22] As I have said, Mr Meek has claimed relief for suffering, hardship and mental distress, said to have been caused by MSD’s delay in informing him that his application for relocation and accommodation costs was declined. He says that the delay in sending the letter declining his application caused him to miss out on insurance, because he was told by the insurance company he needed a letter from MSD and it was “too late” by the time he got it. He also claims that this delay contributed to his mental health issues.
[23]There are two fundamental difficulties with this aspect of the claim.
[24] First, it must be assumed (from the relief pleaded) that the impugned decision is the decision denying his application for relocation and accommodation costs. MSD has accepted that that decision was wrong and, indeed, has essentially remade it to opposite effect. Thus Mr Meek has already received the greatest benefit that could ordinarily be obtained by way of review.
[25] The second, and related, difficulty is that the relief claimed appears focussed on compensation. Putting to one side the fact that Mr Meek has already received compensation in relation to the “service failures”, an application for judicial review is not a foundation for a damages claim.
Decisions of MSD regarding grant of benefits and rights of appeal
[26] The three other MSD decisions apparently challenged by Mr Meek are the decisions to:
(a)grant him a recoverable advance payment of benefit, instead of issuing him non-recoverable civil defence payments for costs associated with his move to Wellington (27 June 2011);
(b)decline his application for a clothing grant (12 July 2015); and
(c)decline his application for an advance payment for firewood (17 December 2015).
[27]He also says that he has been denied appeal rights in relation to these decisions.
[28]Again, the claims face some insuperable hurdles.
[29] First, Mr Meek does not identify any error of law or process which might vitiate the decisions. That point alone means that no tenable cause of action is disclosed.
[30] Secondly, he had statutory rights of appeal against those decisions.2 And while the existence of appeal rights does not preclude a claim for review, they do call into question its utility. And again the more fundamental point is that Mr Meek does not plead how he has been denied these rights. Indeed, his assertion appears somewhat contrary to the reality, which is that he has in fact successfully appealed the second decision to the Benefits Review Committee, and subject to the operation of statutory time limits it remains open to him to appeal the third one.
Conclusion
[31] The Court necessarily has considerable sympathy for Mr Meek and the challenges he has faced and the losses he has suffered. As I have said, his
2 Under s 10A of the Act, applicants or beneficiaries affected by a decision may apply to have that reviewed by the Benefits Review Committee. Subsection (8) of that provision states that the Committee, after reviewing the decision, may confirm, vary, or revoke it. Written notification of the decision is provided to the applicant for review, including the reasons for the Committee's decision and advice that the applicant has a right of appeal against the decision to the Social Security Appeal Authority (the Authority). Appeals to the Authority are made under s 12J. Appeals are conducted by way of rehearing, and the Authority may confirm, modify, or reverse the decision appealed against. The appellant may then appeal the decision of the Authority to the High Court by way of case stated on a question of law.
communications with the Court make it clear that he continues to be very distressed and it is sincerely to be hoped that he can get the help that he needs. And it may be that his distress has been exacerbated by his interactions with bureaucracy, although from the material that is before me it seems that the mistakes have been admitted and redress attempted.
[32] In any event, the conclusion that none of Mr Meek’s claims (insofar as they are discernible at all) give rise to a tenable cause of action is inescapable. He has asserted error but has provided no factual or legal grounds for the assertion. No legal mistake, breach of natural justice, or unreasonableness is identified in relation to any of the impugned decisions. In the absence of a properly pleaded and comprehensible claim the Court is unable to assist him. I have no option but to strike out the claim for review and I do so accordingly.
“Rebecca Ellis J”
Solicitors: Crown Law for Respondent Copy to: The Applicant
1
0
0