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


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