New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 11 September - 17 September 2025
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Lassnig v Zhou [2025] NZSC 116
Unsuccessful appeal by L against decision awarding remaining equity be divided 80/20 in Z’s favour - Parties married in 2012 and set up Family Trust of which they were the trustees and primary beneficiaries – Z’s financial contributions to the Trust were significantly more than L, his contributions equated to 18.75 per cent of total financial contributions - Their non-financial contributions to the marriage were roughly equal – Parties separated in 2015 – FC ordered remaining equity should be divided equally - HC ordered remaining equity be divided 60/40 in Z’s favour - Correct approach to s182 Family Proceedings Act 1980 in the context of a marriage of short duration, where there was inequality of financial contributions, no children of the marriage and no other relevant factors –
CA erred in its approach to the second stage of s182 inquiry as set out in Clayton and Preston - CA incorrectly considered short to medium-term consequences, while the second stage required longer-term focus due to being premised on the continuation of the marriage - CA also considered difference in parties' contributions at second stage - Consistent with purpose of s182 inquiries, contributions should be considered at the third, discretionary, stage - In a case involving a short-term marriage where there were no children of the marriage nor any other countervailing considerations, financial contributions assume more importance – Key issues were marriage was of short duration, and source and character of Trust assets - Remaining equity in Trust should be divided 80/20 in Z’s favour.
Lepionka & Company Investments LTD v Gibson Sheat [2025] NZCA 469
Unsuccessful appeal by LCIL against HC decision holding it had not received negligent advice from GS who were LCIL solicitors - LCIL established for L as part of a strategy to take control of a subdivision in financial difficulty in which L had interests - LCIL said GS’ advice on that strategy was negligent and that an oral agreement reached with GS in full and final settlement was unenforceable because it did not receive independent legal advice in respect of GS' conflict of interest –
LCIL knew all the material information relevant to whether it should enter into the settlement with GS before it agreed to that settlement - Because LCIL had already been informed of that information, the oral agreement was not conditional on the receipt of further independent legal advice and both parties intending to be bound when they reached the oral agreement settling their dispute.
R v Mellow [2025] NZCA 449
Successful appeal by the Crown against sentence of five years nine months' imprisonment for a range of serious offences, including using a firearm against police officers; aggravated burglary; kidnapping; and wounding with intent to injure - M on bail and subject to release conditions when offending was committed - M received discounts for deprived background and methamphetamine addiction which the Judge considered “had a causative impact” on the offending, remorse and rehabilitative efforts totalling 30 per cent – Whether discounts generous –
Discounts based on personal mitigating factors may be constrained by seriousness of offending – Discounts often overlap - May be necessary to consider global effect of discounts in evaluation of appropriate sentence, particularly if offending serious - Judge erred in not confining discounts for personal mitigating factors to 20 per cent - Seriousness of offending, related sentencing imperatives of denunciation, deterrence, community protection and overlapping nature of discounts – MPI appropriate - Offending serious, risked grave harm, use of firearm against police officer, taking of hostage – Appeal allowed – Sentence of seven years' imprisonment with MPI of 50 per cent imposed.
G v R [2025] NZCA 459
Anderson v R [2025] NZCA 464
Unsuccessful appeal by A against sentence of five years four months' imprisonment for supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply, and possession of methamphetamine as well as offering to sell cannabis – DC considered A’s offending fell within band four of Zhang v R and adopted a starting point of nine years six months' imprisonment based on quantities of methamphetamine involved and A’s substantial role – Uplift for cannabis offending and totality – Discounts for guilty pleas, addiction, efforts at rehabilitation and remorse and EM bail -
Although overlap in quantity of methamphetamine relevant to supply and possession charges, Judge made no material error in sentencing A based on quantity described in agreed summary of facts - Starting point consistent with authorities, and within range – Uplift appropriate - Guilty plea delayed, 10 per cent discount warranted - Combined 35 per cent reduction for personal factors within range – Appeal dismissed.
Iloahefaiva v R [2025] NZCA 467
Successful appeal by I against sentence of two years' imprisonment for possession of cannabis for supply (368 gms, found together with point bags, scales, cannabis grinders and cash) -
Starting point of two years four months' imprisonment excessive having regard to comparable cases - Starting point of two years more appropriate and consistent with current sentencing – Judge had not erred failing to give any credit for personal background factors - Open to Judge to determine “nature and strength” of contribution to offending was not so great as to require a reduction at sentencing - Judge erred in declining to convert end sentence to home detention - Refusal to impose a community-based sentence contributed to a manifestly excessive end sentence - Home detention and community work, with conditions I attend drug and alcohol counselling, would more appropriately serve the purposes of sentencing - I served 10 months' imprisonment which met purposes of sentencing of punishment, deterrence and denunciation - Appropriate outcome for I to be convicted and discharged.
Watson v R [2025] NZCA 455
Governor-General’s reference to establish whether a miscarriage of justice occurred – W convicted of murdering Olivia Hope and Ben Smart - Issue at trial whether W was the lone man with whom the victims boarded a boat the last time they were seen - Focus of hearing was evidence suggesting hairs belonging to O were located on W’s boat and evidence that barman and water taxi driver identified W as the man O and B were last seen –
Miscarriage of justice had not arisen in respect of the Hair evidence or W’s identification - Concerns raised with ESR's quality management system did not raise any real issue with the reliability of the Hair evidence - Crown prosecutor's closing submissions and trial Judge's directions on Hair evidence appropriate – Not a case where Crown had to prove a strand of circumstantial evidence (the provenance of the two hairs) beyond reasonable doubt - Scientific evidence used at trial had not been undermined and revealed to be unreliable - Issues of admissibility of evidence must be determined under the law of evidence that applied at the time - Evidential value of taxi driver’s identification outweighed any unfairness associated with its admission - It was properly admitted.
R v Deluney [2025] NZHC 2644 (5 September 2025) Churchman J
Jury found D guilty of murder of mother – Minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) at issue – Not submitted life imprisonment manifestly unjust – s104 Sentencing Act 2002 applied – Attack violent, frenzied and prolonged – High level of callousness including attempts to conceal the murder and involvement – Victim particularly vulnerable because of age, health, and living circumstances –
Sentence imposed life imprisonment with MPI of 18 years.
Dotcom v Minister of Justice [2025] NZHC 2634 (10 September 2025) Grice J
Unsuccessful application for judicial review of Minister of Justice (Minister) decision to surrender D to the United States to face charges of copyright infringement, money laundering, and wire fraud, in relation to his company – Judicial review also sought of Commissioner of Police decision not to lay charges against D in New Zealand (NZ), thereby leaving D open to extradition under the Treaty on Extradition between NZ and the United States (the Treaty) – At issue whether significant disparity between sentence D might face if found guilty on the charges in the United States, and the domestic sentences imposed on alleged co-offenders in NZ –
Minister did not disregard any mandatory restrictions under s7 Extradition Act 1999 – No evidence to support D’s allegation that the United States prosecution was politically motivated or carried out for any other improper purpose – No conduct amounting to a breach of the Treaty, bad faith, or an abuse of process – Minister did not fail to take into account any discretionary restrictions under s8 – Likely sentence if convicted in the United Stated was substantially higher than what he would expect to received in NZ, but not such that it would “shock the conscience” of properly informed New Zealanders – Surrender decision not unreasonable – Commissioner decision to charge co-offenders but not D was a proper exercise of the Police’s discretion given differences in circumstances – Application declined.
New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Inc v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 2665 (15 September 2025) La Hood J
Unsuccessful application for interim relief pending determination of substantive application for judicial review – Judicial review proceedings challenged decision of Cabinet to ban commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand from 1 August 2026 – GRNZ said it sought relief that vindicated its position in respect of the welfare of greyhounds in the greyhound racing industry, and which was required to prevent the Minister and his officials from taking steps to encourage or require members of greyhound racing clubs to stop greyhound racing while it was still lawful –
Relief sought would breach the principle of non-interference – Cabinet’s decision to ban greyhound racing was not subject to any legal yardsticks, and no statutory duty to consult the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) – Even if some duty to consult the RIB, GRNZ did not have a strong case that this required the Minister to go beyond the RIB information obtained and presented to Cabinet – Executive not unlawfully implementing the ban without legislative authority by requiring members of greyhound racing clubs to cease greyhound racing while it was still lawful – Evidence of consequences of the aspects of the decision that were not pleaded to be reviewable did not justify interim relief – Application declined.
The Court of Appeal judges have advised that LawPoints falls into the category of a Law Digest where a decision prohibits publication in news media or on the internet, but allows it in a law report or law digest. LawPoints will sometimes include information on such decisions, but lawyers will have to log in using their lawyer ID to view the decision.
Request copies of other cases and articles from the Law Society Library.