Winston’s lawsuit not going so well

Newsroom reports:

Court documents have confirmed New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was sent a letter by officials four years into his seven-year overpayment of national superannuation asking him to check details he had supplied, including that he was ‘single’.
He continued to receive the higher rate of superannuation for ‘single, shared accommodation’ rather than his actual ‘de facto relationship’ for three further years.

So Winston’s lawsuit has led to the public learning that not only did Peters incorrectly apply for the higher single rate of NZ Super, he was written to about it and never told them he wasn’t single.

Chief High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning has now ordered Peters to supply answers by Friday to several questions he had not adequately addressed. 
He also ordered Peters to pay “modest” costs over this round of the case. “It has to be remembered that the application is against the background of a failure to provide answers in the form required by the rules initially.”

Judge has slapped some costs onto Winston for trying to dodge questions.

For example, the judge found Peters’ answer to the Crown lawyers’ question of “As at March 18, 2014, were you living with Ms Janet Trotman in a de facto relationship?” was “general in the extreme” and “is to be answered”.
He also had failed to answer the Crown’s question on whether he had contacted MSD after the 2014 letter. Justice Venning ruled: “The applicant is entitled to a clear answer as to whether Mr Peters did contact MSD in response to the letter. The interrogatory is to be answered.”
Further, Peters had not answered if he told MSD officials at their office in Ellerslie on July 26, 2017, that his claim on his original superannuation application that he was ‘single’ was incorrect. “The question is to be answered,” the judge said.

All important questions.

Another, related question, of how many times Peters “had refused to receive a briefing under the no surprises policy from a chief executive or official” did need to be answered as it had received an inadequate answer from the politician.
Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry had tried to argue that “there are no clear instances where the plaintiff had been involved in the rejection of a ‘no surprises’ disclosure that spring to the plaintiff’s mind.” The judge said it must be answered directly.

This is important as Peters in insisting National Ministers should have refused a no surprises briefing, yet it seems he never did so himself of course.