Unclear if MSD will re-examine declined abuse in care compensation claims after court ruling

Officials have decided not to appeal against a court ruling that found a government department responsible for considering claims for abuse in care wasn't following its own assessment policy.

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was wrong to strike out at the first hurdle claims for compensation for abuse suffered by three people, Justice Dale La Hood ruled.

Wellington human rights law firm Cooper Legal sought a judicial review in the High Court of decisions affecting the three people.

The three, who have name suppression, say they were subjected to physical or sexual abuse and the former Department of Social Welfare did not act when concerns were raised.

RNZ asked the ministry about the implications of not filing an appeal, such as the possible effect on the registration process for claims, whether decisions denying other people would be re-examined and what contingencies were in place.

Its general manager for historic claims Linda Hrstich-Meyer confirmed the ministry accepted the High Court's ruling.

"We are now actively progressing work to understand the implications of the decision and determine appropriate next steps," she said.

"This has included engagement with Cooper Legal, letting them know we will not be appealing the decision."

Cooper Legal principal Lydia Oosterhoff said it provided the ministry with a list of its clients whose registration claims were denied since it introduced the criteria the court ruled unlawful, and was waiting to see how the ministry would deal with those people.

The firm had 32 clients turned down for registration and another 12 who were registered to make a claim but were then told they weren't eligible for redress.

Oosterhoff now wanted to meet with officials to discuss reassessing those claims.

She confirmed the ministry had now registered the claims of the three people the court ruling dealt with.

But, Oosterhoff said Cooper Legal was also concerned about unrepresented claimants.

"We know that a large amount of people who believe they have been abused in state care go to MSD themselves, cap in hand, asking for settlement.

"If MSD applies the same unlawful registration criterial to unrepresented claimants, what is MSD doing to ensure that these people are contacted and told that, potentially, they were wrongly told they did not have grounds for a claim?"

Cooper Legal had asked the ministry that question, but hadn't received a clear response, Oosterhoff said.

"Survivors of abuse in care are left out in the dark not knowing whether they will get redress or not."

She said the High Court ruling made it clear that people whose claims were registered were eligible for a compensation offer under the ministry's rapid payment framework.

Justice La Hood's decision outlined the process for applications for compensation, which were considered in two parts.

For the first, claimants needed to show they had been in the care or custody of Social Welfare, or had come to its attention. For the second they needed to have believed they were harmed as a result.

The ministry was interpreting this harm as having to be attributed to Social Welfare's actions - or lack of action - but Justice La Hood said this was not correct and was at odds with the ministry's policy.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.