J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, T v Attorney-General

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 130 OF THE INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY (COMPULSORY CARE AND REHABILITATION) ACT 2003, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

NOTE: NO PUBLICATION OF THE YOUTH COURT PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO IN [2025] NZSC 103 IS PERMITTED UNDER S 438 OF THE ORANGA TAMARIKI ACT 1989, EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF THE COURT THAT HEARD THE PROCEEDINGS, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUBLICATIONS OF A BONA FIDE PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL NATURE THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON, OR THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OR ANY PERSON HAVING THE CARE OF THE CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON, OR THE SCHOOL THAT THE CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON WAS OR IS ATTENDING. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 10/2024
[2025] NZSC 144

BETWEEN	J, COMPULSORY CARE RECIPIENT, BY HIS WELFARE GUARDIAN, T Appellant
AND	ATTORNEY‑GENERAL First Respondent DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU Second Respondent FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU Third Respondent CARE CO‑ORDINATOR Fourth Respondent CARE MANAGER Fifth Respondent

SC 11/2024
BETWEEN	J, COMPULSORY CARE RECIPIENT, BY HIS WELFARE GUARDIAN, T Appellant
AND	CARE CO‑ORDINATOR Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	A J Ellis and G K Edgeler for Appellant K Laurenson, M J McKillop and R E R Gavey for First and Fourth Respondents in SC 10/2024 and Respondent in SC 11/2024 No appearance for Second, Third and Fifth Respondents in SC 10/2024
Judgment:	17 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

By consent:

(a)The first and fourth respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.

(b)Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are remitted to those Courts to determine in the absence of agreement between the parties.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We agree we should make orders as to costs in the terms set out, reflecting the views of counsel for the appellant, and for the first and fourth respondents in SC 10/2024 and respondent in SC 11/2024. Orders are made accordingly.

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Fourth Respondents in SC 10/2024 and Respondent in SC 11/2024

Copy to:
L M Sijbrant, IHC New Zealand Inc, Wellington for Intervener
B J Peck, Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission, Wellington for Intervener

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, T v Attorney-General involved a dispute concerning the compulsory care and rehabilitation of an individual with an intellectual disability. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós, and Miller JJ presiding. The appellant, T, as the welfare guardian of J, contested the decisions made by the Attorney-General, the District Court at Manukau, the Family Court at Manukau, the Care Co-ordinator, and the Care Manager regarding the compulsory care of J.

The legal issues before the court centered on the interpretation and application of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The appellant argued that the decisions made regarding J's care were not in his best interests and violated his rights under the Act. The respondents contended that the decisions were made in accordance with the law and were necessary for J's welfare.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant legislation. The Supreme Court found that the decisions made by the respondents were in accordance with the Act and were in the best interests of J. The court also noted that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the decisions were unlawful or unjust.

The Supreme Court ordered that the first and fourth respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. The court also remitted the costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court to those courts to determine in the absence of agreement between the parties. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that compulsory care and rehabilitation decisions are made in the best interests of individuals with intellectual disabilities and in accordance with the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established