Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search


Judgment: Greenfield v MSD

24 September 2015



(SC 10/2015) [2015] NZSC 139


This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at Judicial Decisions of Public Interest www.courtsofnz.govt.nz

In 1993 Mrs Greenfield and her husband left New Zealand to serve as missionaries in Singapore. They enjoyed residency status there, were treated as Singaporean residents for tax purposes, and were eligible to apply for Singaporean citizenship. The Greenfields have, however, maintained significant connections with New Zealand. They have children and grandchildren living in New Zealand where they retain property and spend around three weeks a year with additional visits for medical treatment and family reasons. They have always intended to retire to New Zealand but have not yet set a date for their return.

Mrs Greenfield turned 65 on 1 February 2012 and shortly afterwards applied for New Zealand Superannuation. This application was declined by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development on the ground that she was not “ordinarily resident in New Zealand”, as is required by s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2011. The Chief Executive’s decision was upheld by a Benefits Review Committee and by the Social Security Appeal Authority. Mrs Greenfield appealed successfully against the Authority’s decision to the High Court, but a subsequent appeal by the Chief Executive to the Court of Appeal was allowed. Mrs Greenfield was then granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; the approved question being whether the

Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand”.

Counsel for Mrs Greenfield submitted that the Court of Appeal had placed insufficient weight on Mrs Greenfield’s intention to retire to New Zealand. It was further submitted that the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” necessarily required more than casual physical presence in New Zealand. Counsel for the Chief Executive argued that the interpretation that the Court of Appeal had adopted was correct. It was submitted that a close and clear connection between an applicant and New Zealand was necessary to give effect to the purpose of the legislation; and that s 8(a) required an applicant for New Zealand Superannuation to show that on the date of their application they usually physically lived in New Zealand, with any absences from New Zealand being only temporary.

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal. While an intention to ultimately return to New Zealand is relevant to the assessment of whether an applicant is “ordinarily resident” in the country for the purposes of s 8(a), such an intention is not in itself determinative. The domestic realities of an applicant’s life must also be considered, and a person will not be considered “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” during lengthy and non-temporary absences, particularly if during such absences another country is regarded as home. This conclusion has been reached in light of a consideration of the overall scheme of the legislation and the statutory history. It draws further support from previous High Court decisions.

Judgment: SC_10_2015__Greenfield_v_Ministry_of_Social_Development_Civil_Judgment.pdf

© Scoop Media

Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Gordon Campbell: On National’s Ongoing Problems With Abortion

Despite Christopher Luxon’s assurances to the contrary, there is no such thing as “settled law” in New Zealand. Apart from the six provisions that are constitutionally entrenched, legislation can always be amended or overturned by a simple majority vote within our single chamber of Parliament. Luxon’s repeated use of the term “settled law” has been particularly tone deaf, given that several of the US Supreme Court justices used that very same term during their confirmation hearings...


Government: New Measures To Help Manage COVID-19 As Country Stays At Orange
The Government is taking action to help reduce the spread of COVID-19 in schools and early childhood services, COVID-19 Response Minster Dr Ayesha Verrall and Associate Education Minister Jan Tinetti announced today... More>>

Prime Minister: Remarks At NATO Summit
It is a rare thing to have New Zealand represented at a NATO Summit. While we have worked together in theatres such as Afghanistan, and have been partners for just on a decade, today represents an important moment for our Pacific nation... More>>

Government: Joint Press Release With President Of The Govt Of Spain Pedro Sánchez & PM Of New Zealand
On June 28, 2022, a meeting took place in Madrid between the President of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, who was visiting Spain... More>>

Greens: Alcohol Harm Minimisation Bill Pulled From Biscuit Tin

After years of research and advocacy, Parliament will finally consider legislation to take meaningful action on alcohol harm, says the Greens... More>>

Government: Wellington’s Rapid Transit Option Progresses To Next Stage
The Government is progressing a preferred option for LGWM which will see Wellington’s transport links strengthened with light rail from Wellington Station to Island Bay... More>>

NZ Republic: Charles CHOGM Speech Green Light For Change
“Prince Charles had made it clear in his speech to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda today that even the Royal family think it’s time for change” said Lewis Holden, campaign chair of New Zealand Republic... More>>




InfoPages News Channels