Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented J, in midst of protracted, contested proceedings in Family Court concerning care of child, applied for “safety hearing” – Non-statutory procedure where Court conducted screening exercise to determine whether safe to permit parent unsupervised access to child — 

Application declined – J sought judicial review in HC - Application declined – Appeal to CA failed as did application to recall CA judgment – J sought leave to appeal both judgments to SC – 

SC said nothing J raised indicated CA erred in its judgment – No question of general or public importance raised – No risk of miscarriage of justice – Applications dismissed. 

SC also said in submissions filed J cited several authorities which “appear to have been hallucinated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) application” – Said misuse of AI in legal proceedings had serious implications for administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system – People filing submissions in court had to ensure all authorities referred to were genuine and correctly cited – 

SC said reliance on false citations, including unverified outputs of AI applications, might in serious cases amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Health and Safety, trusts 

RH & JY Trust v Worksafe New Zealand [2026] NZCA 12 

Partly successful appeal - Trust and its trustees were charged with offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the Act) following the death of a child on a farm owned by the trustees for the trust – Appellants raised issue whether they are correctly charged as defendants – District Court held no charges could be brought against the trust or trustees collectively, only the trustees in their individual capacity – On appeal to the High Court it was held that while charges could not be brought against the trust itself, they could be brought against the trustees collectively – Appellants appealed – Whether a trust is a person under the Act - Whether the trustees of a trust comprise a “body of persons” within the definition of “person” in the Act - 

Cooke and Palmer JJ – Appeal allowed in part - A trust or the trustees acting collectively can be a person under the Act - Either the trust or trustees collectively can be the body of persons – The label does not alter the substantive effect of the provisions –  

Whata J dissenting – In the absence of express statutory wording a trust cannot be a person - Individual trustees conduct business - Trusts do not conduct business as collective trustee entities - There is no need to invent collective trustee liability - Consistent with the Act’s purpose and orthodox principles of trust and criminal law, individuals may be liable “as trustees” for non-compliant conduct of business using trust assets. 

Security for costs, waiver, bankruptcy  

Verappan v Turner Hopkins Solicitors [2026] NZCA 14 

Unsuccessful application to review decision of Deputy Registrar declining application for waiver of security for costs – Applicant Verappen (V) sought to appeal his bankruptcy – Although the Deputy Registrar declined the application for waiver the security for costs was reduced from $7060 to $1000 – Discretion to dispense with security for costs should be exercised to preserve access to Court of Appeal by impecunious appellant if appeal which a solvent appellant would reasonably wish to prosecute, and prevent the use of impecuniosity to secure the advantage of being able to prosecute an appeal which would not be sensibly pursued by a solvent litigant – A reasonable and solvent litigant would not proceed with an appeal which was hopeless –  

Application declined - V impecunious but his appeal itself considered hopeless – V sought to challenge a judgment debt that had been owing and unpaid for nearly two years – V had provided no reason to doubt the correctness of the High Court order adjudicating him bankrupt – If V wished to pursue his appeal he should pay the security sum of $1000 as directed by the Deputy Registrar. 

Unsuccessful appeal against sentence, sexual offending, starting point, remorse, cultural factors – Login required

[S] v R [2026] NZCA 16 

Trusts, arbitration 

Gatfield v Hinton as executor and trustee of estates of JM and KM Gatfield [2026] NZCA 17 

Unsuccessful appeal against decision of High Court directing dispute raised in proceedings to mediation and then arbitration pursuant to s 145 Trusts Act 2019 (the Act) – Dispute related to family bach – Respondent sold rights to bach – Appellants objected to transaction – Whether Associate Judge had jurisdiction – Whether a decision under s 145 involved the exercise of a discretion or an evaluative assessment – Whether the dispute was in relation to an internal matter – Whether s 145 could be used to order arbitration without agreement – Whether the High Court’s order was appropriate –  

When there are existing proceedings in which the relevant disputes potentially covered by s 145 are raised, it made sense to seek the order by way of interlocutory application and when this occurs an Associate Judge had jurisdiction – Decision in the present context is evaluative rather than discretionary – While s 145 created a power expressed in discretionary terms the proper exercise of that power involved deciding upon the appropriate dispute resolution processes in light of the facts of the case, the principles of the Act and access to justice considerations – It was not a completely discretionary decision – Only internal matters can be referred to mediation or arbitration – Dispute was solely between the trustee and beneficiaries and falls within the definition of “internal matters” under the Act – The plain wording of s145 gives power for the Court to require an arbitration without an arbitration agreement – The power is only limited if the terms of the trust indicate a contrary intention – The combined mediation and then to arbitration order was appropriate in this case – Given the familial context of the dispute the deployment of confidential processes had advantages – There were no issues that are part of the dispute that are not within the alternative dispute resolution jurisdiction. 

Successful appeal from New South Wales CA – Ultimate issue in appeal whether Diocese liable to AA for harm suffered from P, Diocese priest, sexually assaulting AA in 1969, when child aged 13 years – 

AA commenced proceedings in New South Wales SC alleging P sexually assaulted him - Primary judge said P sexually assaulted AA multiple times in 1969 in presbytery, causing AA harm – Said Diocese vicariously liable for sexual assault – 

Diocese owed AA common law duty of care which breached - AA entitled to damages – Primary judge did not determine claim Diocese breached non-delegable duty owed to AA – 

CA allowed Diocese appeal – AA accepted primary judge’s holding Diocese vicariously liable for P’s wrongful acts could not stand following previous HC decision - CA unanimously ruled Diocese did not owe AA common law duty of care primary judge found – Applying another precedent, CA also unanimously said could be no non-delegable duty owed by Diocese in respect of one of its priest’s intentional criminal act – AA appealed to HC – 

HC majority said Diocese liable to AA for breach of non-delegable duty of care owed to AA in 1969 – Duty might be breached by intentional conduct of duty-holder or delegate, and to the extent previous decision said could be no common law non-delegable duty in respect of harm caused – Intentional criminal act, decision should be re-opened and overturned – Appeal allowed.