Taylor v Attorney-General - [2021] NZCA 329

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA287/2020
[2021] NZCA 329

BETWEEN	LILLIAN ALICE TAYLOR Appellant
AND	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Hearing:	17 June 2021
Court:	Courtney, Mander and Hinton JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person M J Bryant and S Deng for Respondent
Judgment:	23 July 2021 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.
B We make no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

Lillian Taylor has a longstanding concern about the way the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) calculates benefit entitlements for people with disabilities. Her concern relates particularly to the calculation of entitlements for additional power usage required as a result of disability, such as the need for extra heating. Although Ms Taylor is entitled to such benefits, her concern extends beyond her own entitlement — she is concerned about the effect of the MSD’s conduct on people with disabilities generally.
Ms Taylor brought judicial review proceedings against the MSD in an effort to ventilate this issue. Brewer J dismissed the proceedings.[1] Ms Taylor appeals Brewer J’s decision. She also seeks to appeal decisions made by both judicial officers and Registry staff leading up to the determination of the judicial review proceedings. In this decision we deal only with the appeal against Brewer J’s decision.[2]
[1]Taylor v Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development [2020] NZHC 852 [Decision under appeal].
[2]The other decisions, recorded in minutes of Judges or decisions of Deputy Registrars, are not matters on which a right of appeal exists. Leave is required to appeal a decision of the High Court on an interlocutory matter: Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56(3). Where administrative decisions have been made in court correspondence there is no right of appeal: s 56(1).
The scope of the appeal and the grounds advanced by Ms Taylor were contentious. We address them after recording the background to the case.

Interlocutory application for discovery

Shortly before the hearing scheduled for the appeal Ms Taylor filed a document entitled “interlocutory application for orders” in which she gave notice of a variety of applications, only one of which was amenable to being dealt with in the context of the appeal. That was the order sought for discovery of a MSD file note dated 29 September 2016. In fact this document was already in Ms Taylor’s possession; it was included in a bundle of documents that she sought to hand up on the morning of the hearing. It is clear that what Ms Taylor really meant by her interlocutory application was that she was seeking to adduce further evidence, particularly the MSD file note. At the outset of the hearing we could not immediately see the relevance of that document but accepted the bundle on the basis we would consider that issue as part of the overall determination of the appeal.
Subsequent to the hearing of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZCA 329
Decision Date: 23 July 2021 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lillian Taylor has appealed the decision of Brewer J who dismissed her judicial review proceedings against the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). The MSD is the body responsible for assessing benefit entitlements for people with disabilities under the Social Security Act 1964. Ms Taylor has a longstanding concern about the way the MSD calculates benefit entitlements for people with disabilities. In particular, she is concerned about the effect of the MSD’s conduct on people with disabilities generally. Ms Taylor brought judicial review proceedings against the MSD in an effort to ventilate this issue. Brewer J dismissed the proceedings. Ms Taylor appeals Brewer J’s decision. We address the scope of the appeal and the grounds advanced by Ms Taylor and then consider whether the appeal was properly determined by the Judge. The appeal was properly determined by the Judge. Ms Taylor’s generalised concern about the way the MSD uses the Powerswitch calculator generally, i.e. in relation to all its clients, does not identify a specific decision or action that could be judicially reviewed. Furthermore, Ms Taylor’s complaint about the way the hearing was conducted is not a matter that warrants setting aside the decision and directing a fresh hearing. The appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

Orders