Residential-Care Subsidy Update - Eligibility Improved

Thursday, July 20, 2017

The High Court, in Broadbent v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2017] NZHC 1499 (a test case), has told the Ministry of Social Development that it is not correctly applying the means testing assessment for income when determining someone's eligibility for a residential-care subsidy.

On Mrs Broadbent's application for a rest home subsidy the Ministry accepted that her "permissible" gifting to her trust of $27,000.00 per annum prior to the period commencing on the date five years before the date on which she applied for a subsidy, did not disqualify her for a subsidy at the first asset test stage of the means assessment.  However when it conducted the second stage of the means test concerning income the Ministry's policy or practice of deeming that the applicant had deprived herself of the income streams associated with the earlier gifted assets was applied.  Accordingly it quantified the amount and then treated it as her income for the purposes of the income assessment process.  As a result it put her income above the income threshold necessary for her to qualify for a residential care subsidy and it was declined.   Mrs Broadbent therefore had to pay the maximum sum towards her rest home care.

The Ministry was held by the Court to be wrong in treating this so called deprived income as Mrs Broadbent's own.  In saying this the Court applied basic common law principles concerning the nature of gifts.  The Judge, Justice Katz, noted that whilst the Ministry's practice may well be consistent with its policy objectives that people should use the resources available to them before seeking financial support from the state, it did not accord with the statutory scheme of the Social Security Act 1964 and the Social Security (Long-Term Residential-Care) Regulations 2005.  Rather the statutory scheme had to be aligned with the longstanding principles of common law of what is an unconditional gift of an asset to another person, namely that it includes all the rights, benefits and entitlements associated with the gifted asset including any right or entitlement to future income.  The Judge said that "there is nothing to suggest that Parliament envisaged that either allowable gifting (in the sum of $6,000.00 per annum) or permissible gifting (in the sum of $27,000.00 per annum) was intended to be conditional in nature.  In the absence of some clear indication to the contrary, such gifting must be considered to be unconditional".  In Mrs  Broadbent's case her gifting was no different to the standard unconditional gifting settlors make to a trust which did not retain the right to the income which the asset might in the future generate.  Accordingly the Ministry was wrong to factor that income actual or notional back into the means assessment process when assessing her eligibility for a residential-care subsidy.

This judgment was issued on 30 June 2017.  The Ministry has a right to appeal it within 20 working days.  It will be interesting to see if that occurs and if any legislative amendment ends up happening.

If you have any questions or concerns about this topic please contact Peter Fuscic on (09) 306 6746 ( from our Auckland City Office.


This article is published for general information purposes only.  Legal content in this article is necessarily of a general nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you require specific legal advice in respect of any legal issue, you should always engage a lawyer to provide that advice.   


Recent Posts


Terms of Trade Limitation period Break up Claims against estates Clayton case White v White Grey Power Protection Order Personal Limitation defence Pattern of offending Personal Properties and Securities Act 1999 Repayment Skilled migrant points Mortgage Wills Act 2007 Section 8 Murrell v Hamilton Commercial WINZ Undue influence Charity Duress Landlord Resident Visa Mortgagor Character requirements Estate Administration Albany Office Employment Division of Functions Companies Act 1993 Consumer credit contracts Economic disadvantage Amundson v Raos Administrators duty Zero Hour Contracts Fair share Creating Trusts Financial services Blackwell v Hollings Wilson v Donnellan Temper Principal Document Disclosure Valid wills Will that do Lease Titles De facto Section 15A Health and Safety Reform Bill Twelve years Limitation Act 2010 Ilott v Mitson 2017 UKSC 17 Financial Advisers Act 2008 Trust Confidentiality Limitation Act 1950 Testamentary capacity Seperation Intellectual Property Interpretation Act 1999 Section 29 Family Trusts Financial products Trust busting Auckland Office Financial services provider (FSP) Immigration Acknowledgment of Debt Domestic Violence Act 1995 Trusts Bill Immigration New Zealand Lease Part payment Tenant Violence Company Law Lump sum Offending Compensation Visa application Wills KiwiSaver Mortgagee Gifts Resident SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289 Partner of resident Section 15 Re Estate of Feron Eviction Rest Home Subsidies Case Study Contract Law Commercial Law Income Six years Ministry of Social Development Unfair contract terms Recovery of money Subsidies Hawkes Bay Trustee Company Limited v Judd Testamentary Promises Testamentary writing Partnership based work visa Gifting Due Diligence Ministry Shareholders' Agreement Trusts Privacy Act 1993 Beneficiary Rights Charity begins at home Anti-money laundering (AML) Erceg v Erceg Commercial Property Reckless Trading Body Corporate Changes Trust Check Up SMC Tamarapa v Byerley Trustee Duties Sale of Goods Relationship Property Protector Litigation Living standards Testamentary freedom Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) Invalid wills Residential Abuse Fair Trading Act 1986 Property Constructive trusts ''Best Endeavours'' Charities Interest Expression of interest Wills Act 2007 Section 182 Family Proceedings Act 1980 Skilled migrant Wills Act 2007 Section 14 Frustration Tenants Acknowledgment Work and Income Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 Physical abuse Family Protection Act 1955 Directors' Duties Business Psychological abuse Domestic violence Validity of Wills Verbal abuse Interpretation Act 1999 Interpretation of documents Deceased's wishes Elder Law Property (Relationships) Act 1976 Marriage Lankow v Rose Asset Protection Will Broadbent v Ministry of Social Development Legislation update Loss of income Civil union Wills Act 2007 Section 11 Executors duty Re Estate of Campbell