Te Ua v Secretary for War Pensions

[2014] NZHC 1476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2014-485-000061 [2014] NZHC 1476

BETWEEN

WALTER HORTON TE UA

Plaintiff

LYNETTE STANKOVICH Second Plaintiff

AND

SECRETARY FOR WAR PENSIONS First Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Defendant

Hearing:	(On Papers)
Judgment:	27 June 2014

JUDGMENT AS TO REMEDIES OF WHATA J

[1]      In my judgment dated 10 June 2014,1  I resolved to grant relief in relation to several of the claims made by Father Te Ua in respect of actions by or on behalf of the Secretary for War Pensions.2    I directed that the parties confer and, where they were able, reach agreement in terms of the directions that I proposed to make.

[2]      Counsel have indicated that they are agreed that the declarations proposed by me are in appropriate terms.  They are also in agreement with my direction that the first   defendant   reconsider  Ms Stankovich’s   application   for  reimbursement   of outgoings and loss of wages in relation to her travel with Father Te Ua to Palmerston North.  The first defendant has also confirmed that he will reconsider the application

in accordance with the judgment and the statutory requirements.

1      Te Ua v Secretary for War Pensions [2014] NZHC 1050.

2      Refer paragraphs [211]-[223].

TE UA v SECRETARY FOR WAR PENSIONS [2014] NZHC 1476 [27 June 2014]

[3]      Given the submissions of counsel,   I now confirm and make the following declarations:

(a)      The time taken to make a decision on the following applications did not satisfy the statutory requirement to make a decision as soon as practicable:

(i)The  applications  for  gout,  throat/speech  disorders,  Pagets disease, thyroidectomy and memory loss dated 10 April 2007;

(ii)      The    application    for   reflux    and   fatty   infiltration    dated

11 February 2009.

(b)      The  time  taken  between  the  decisions  of  10  December  2009  and

9 February 2010 and notification of the decisions dated 11 January

2010   and   26   February   2010   respectively   did   not   satisfy   the requirement to notify the applicant forthwith in accordance with s

14(4).

(c)      The statement of policy recorded at [104]3 of my judgment is flawed insofar  as  it  purports  to  require  corroborating  information  where

statements of veterans are not supported by information on the service

3        Paragraph  [104]  refers  to  the  following  statement  included  in  a  letter  from  the

Secretary to Ms Stankovich dated 27 January 2011:

If there is no relevant information on the Service File, and the disability is not consistent with what is known about the role undertaken by the claimant when they were in service and the environment they served in, then any statements that are provided with the claim are considered.

These statements on their own are considered evidence without foundation.   This does not in its own right constitute evidence; it only indicates that there is an absence of evidence about the cause of a disability.   The War Pensions Claims Panel seek to corroborate these statements by considering whether they are consistent with the other evidence they have available.

file and the disability is not consistent with what is known about the role undertaken by the veteran.

(d)A veteran is entitled to, on request, receive all medical reports that will be before the Claims Panel so that the veteran can include in any submissions on the application, comments about the medical report.

Whata J

Solicitors:

Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt

Crown Law, Wellington