A Mother's Fight for Fair Pay: Why the Crown Must Pay Family Carers
In a landmark ruling that shines a light on the often invisible labor of family caregivers, the Chief Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis has ordered the Ministry of Social Development to pay Christine Fleming nearly $350,000 in legal costs. The decision, handed down in May, marks a significant victory in a six-year battle that has exposed deep flaws in how New Zealand values the work of parents caring for disabled children.
What did the court decide?
The judge ruled that the Crown must reimburse Fleming $347,109.98 for the actual costs of her Employment Court proceedings. This covers the fees of her lawyers, Paul Dale, KC, and Mark Jeffries, who had effectively worked pro bono since 2019. In her decision, Inglis noted the unique jurisdiction of the court is grounded in equity and good conscience, and asked Crown counsel to identify a reason why it might be fair for Fleming to be out of pocket. Counsel could not think of one, nor could the judge.
Why has this case taken so long?
Fleming first went to the Employment Court in 2019, claiming she was an employee of the Ministry of Health. The court agreed, ruling she and another parent, Peter Humphreys, were homeworkers and employees. But the Crown appealed, leading to a series of rulings that eventually reached the Supreme Court, which sided with Fleming and Humphreys in December 2025. The legal costs award now pays for the work done six years ago.
What does this mean for other family carers?
Disability advocate Jane Carrigan, who was also awarded $2,000 in non-party costs, says the court has recognized the complete injustice of the case. She points out that being an applicant is far harder than being the respondent, who simply says no. Dale, Fleming's lawyer, says the case was a test case, and the real issue now is what happens to 24 other claims from family carers awaiting the outcome. He fears the Crown is trying to change the law to make those claims miss out.
Is the government trying to change the rules?
Yes. The government has introduced legislation that would clarify the purpose of Disability Support Services, including making it clear the Crown is not the employer of family carers. Dale calls the bill a terrible piece of legislation that should be put in a shredder and started again. He argues that bureaucrats have a fixed view that parents should provide care out of love and affection without state support, and that ministers have never had the issue squarely explained to them.
What happens next?
The select committee is expected to report back next month, with Fleming's case due back before the Employment Court in September. The battle is far from over. Fleming says the government has delayed her case to push through the legislation. Dale warns that if the law changes, 24 other carers with compelling claims will miss out on the entitlement they would have had if they had pressed on.
FAQ
Why did the court award such a large sum for legal costs?
The judge ruled that the Crown should pay the actual costs of the Employment Court proceedings because it was not fair for Fleming to be out of pocket. The Crown could not identify a reason why it would be fair for her to bear the costs.
What is the government's proposed legislation doing?
The bill aims to clarify the purpose of Disability Support Services, including making it clear the Crown is not the employer of family carers. Critics say it is an attempt to avoid paying carers the minimum wage and holiday pay they are entitled to.
How many other family carers are affected by this case?
There are 24 other claims from family carers awaiting the outcome of Fleming's case. If the law changes, they may miss out on the entitlement they would have had if they had pressed on.
What does this mean for the future of family care in New Zealand?
This case has exposed a systemic failure to value the work of family carers. The ruling could set a precedent for recognizing them as employees entitled to minimum wage and other protections, but the government's proposed legislation threatens to undermine that progress.