De Morgan v Director-General of Social Welfare
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 1997 |
| Date | 07 October 1997 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Privy Council - Jurisdiction - Special leave to appeal - Statutes providing for decisions of Court of Appeal of New Zealand on matters originating in inferior courts or in Employment Court to be “final” - Whether right of appeal to Privy Council abrogated - Whether excluding jurisdiction of Privy Council to grant special leave to appeal -
Rule 2 of the
The petitioners in the first case, who owned a rest home in New Zealand, had entered into a contract with the Director-General of Social Welfare whereby the Department of Social Welfare paid a subsidy in respect of the accommodation costs of residents of the rest home who met certain eligibility criteria. Following an increase in the rate of goods and services tax payable on such accommodation, the petitioners brought proceedings against the Director-General in the District Court for the recovery of $30,869 on the ground that section 87(2) of the
The petitioner in the second case brought proceedings in the Employment Court seeking relief under the
On the petitions: —
Held, (1) that on a true construction of section 67 of the Judicature Act 1908, notwithstanding the absence of express words to such effect, decisions of the Court of Appeal on appeals from the High Court in cases originating in inferior courts were final; and that, accordingly, the petitioner in the first case had no right of appeal under rule 2 of the Order of 1910 (post, p. 431B–E).
(2) That for the purposes of section 135(1) of the Employment Contracts Act 1991, proceedings were brought under that Act if they were brought in the Employment Court established by the Act; that the provision in section 104 of the Act conferring on that court power to determine issues arising under other legislation did not alter the nature of the proceedings themselves which could only have been brought before the Employment Court by reason of the statutory jurisdiction created by the Act; and that, accordingly, although the petitioner in the second case had sought relief under the
(3) Dismissing the petitions for want of jurisdiction, that the power of the Privy Council to entertain appeals was no longer a wholly prerogative power but was regulated by the
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada [
British Coal Corporation v. The King [
Cushing v. Dupuy (
Walker v. The Queen [
Wi Matua's Will, In re [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Associated Motorists Petrol Co. Ltd. v. Bannerman (No. 2) [
Atihau-Wanganui, Proprietors of v. Malpas [
Ibralebbe v. The Queen [
Kidd v. Markholm Construction Co. Ltd. [
Kitano v. Commonwealth of Australia [
Moon v. Kent's Bakeries Ltd. (No. 2) [
Nunns v. Licensing Control Commission [
Rutherfurd v. Waite [
Wilson & Horton Ltd. v. Atkinson (Note) [
Petition for special leave to appeal by the petitioners, Shane Campbell De Morgan and Dale De Morgan, against the order of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (Richardson P., McKay, Henry, Keith and Blanchard JJ.) allowing an appeal by the Director-General of Social Welfare from the judgment of Anderson J. on 30 November 1995 whereby, in allowing the petitioners' appeal from a decision of the District Court, the judge had ordered the Department of Social Welfare to pay the petitioners N.Z.$30,869.05 in respect of services supplied by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kena Kena Properties Ltd v Attorney General
...to mean a grant or subsidy to the other party to the contract. 11 The same point was argued before the Court of Appeal in Director-General of Social Welfare v De Morgan [1996] 3 NZLR 677 and rejected. Richardson P said (at pp. 683-684): "It is the character or quality of what is to be paid......
-
Attorney General for Saint Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov
...King in Council: Mitchell v Director of Public Prosecutions [1986] AC 73, 78; Walker v The Queen [1994] 2 AC 36, 44; De Morgan v Director-General of Social Welfare [1998] AC 275, 284-285. If, properly construed, the Acts of 1833 and 1844 as modified by later instruments do not confer jur......
-
The Superintendent of HM Foxhill Prison and The Government of the United States of America v Viktor Kozeny
...number of cases, notably British Coal Corporation v The King [1935] AC 500 at 519 and 522, De Morgan v Director-General of Social Welfare [1998] AC 275 at 284 and Grant v The Queen [2004] UKPC 27, [2004] 2 AC 550. In Grant the Board said at para 4 that express words were not required to l......
-
Noel Campbell v The Queen (Jamaica)
...right to grant special leave to appeal was considered most recently by the Board in De Morgan v Director-General of Social Welfare [1998] AC 275. The Board held that the right to entertain appeals to the Privy Council is no longer a wholly prerogative power but is regulated by the Judicial ......