New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 12 March - 18 March 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Watson v R [2026] NZSC 15 (10 March 2026)
Partly successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to conclude no miscarriage of justice arose from trial Judge admitting visual identification evidence.
FCL CL Ltd v Lynch [2025] NZSC 17 (13 March 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – FCL CL Ltd sought leave to appeal from CA judgment upholding HC granting summary judgment and ordering caveats to not lapse –
SC said central question whether FCL, developer, could rely on COVID-19 pandemic consequences to invoke force majeure clause to cancel agreements for sale and purchase of units in Queenstown development –
SC said judgments below rested on factual findings that grounds for invoking force majeure clause not made out –
SC not persuaded proposed appeal presented issue of general or public importance, commercial significance, or appearance of substantial miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.
Webster v R [2026] NZCA 67
Successful appeal by W against sentence of life imprisonment with an MPI of 12 years – W aged 18 years at time of offending - W was directly involved in killing the victim and the murder engaged s 104 Sentencing Act 2002 - W not the principal or sole offender - On approach to sentencing set out in Dickey v R, appropriate starting point 20 years' imprisonment - W genuinely remorseful, accepted responsibility and entered early guilty plea - On orthodox approach to mitigating factors for sentences other than finite sentences for murder on the Dickey v R approach, a combined discount of 62 per cent would be appropriate, comprising 25 per cent for guilty plea, eight per cent for remorse, 25 per cent for youth and four per cent for good character - That resulted in end sentence of 14 years' imprisonment - Appropriate end sentence was 14 years' imprisonment with an MPI of seven years (50 per cent).
R v Thompson [2026] NZHC 544 (10 March 2026) McHerron J
Sentencing – Jury found T guilty of manslaughter – T stabbed victim after victim punched him in altercation outside T's house –
Seven and a half years' imprisonment starting point reflecting use, in anger, of lethal weapon resulting in loss of the victim's life – End sentence five years' imprisonment after reductions for offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, remorse, and impact of imprisonment on child.
Kapa-Kingi v Tamihere [2026] NZHC 517 (10 March 2026) Radich J
Partly successful judicial review applications – Related to political party leadership's conduct being unlawful under party's constitution – K-K, Te Pāti Māori electorate MP, claimed members of party's leadership unlawfully suspended then expelled her from Pāti membership – Also claimed Pāti president not validly re-elected, making presidential actions since expiry of first term invalid - Sought relief including K-K’s reinstatement as Pāti member –
Application partly granted – Declarations resolutions to suspend then expel K-K from Pāti membership unlawful under party’s constitution – Order setting aside decisions, reinstating K-K as Pāti member – HC ruled no invalidity in process leading to T’s re-election as Pāti president, so cause of action failed.
Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 (11 March 2026)
Successful appeal from Full Federal Ct – Katie Jane Taylor (born Katie Jane Perry), Australian fashion designer – On 29 September 2008 ("the priority date"), KT applied for and subsequently became registered owner of trademark "Katie Perry" in Australia in class 25 "clothing" (Designer's Mark) – Second respondent, known worldwide as Katy Perry, music artist and performer – Other companies associated with KP (Collectively KP) – On 7 November 2011, KP became registered owner of trademark "Katy Perry" in Australia in class 9 "recording disks" and class 41 "entertainment" (Singer's Mark) –
KT commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia claiming KP infringed Designer's Mark – KP cross-claimed, seeking rectification of trademark register by cancelling registration of Designer's Mark, relying on grounds set out in ss 88(2)(a) and (c) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Act) – Section 88(2)(a) ground, read with s 60, required Court to consider whether using Designer's Mark at priority date would be likely to deceive or cause confusion because of reputation of Singer's Mark at that date – Section 88(2)(c) ground required Court to consider whether using Designer's Mark time when application for rectification filed likely to deceive or cause confusion because of circumstances applying at that time – Primary judge granted relief in KT’s favour and dismissed KP’s cross-claim –
On appeal, Full Court overturned primary judge's findings on s 88(2)(a) and (c), concluding both rectification grounds made out – Full Court also concluded discretion not to rectify register in s 89 not enlivened in circumstances and ordered register rectified by cancelling Designer's Mark registration –
HC majority said Full Court wrong to conclude rectification grounds established – Primary judge made no material error - Appeal allowed.
San Bao Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 6 (11 March 2026)
Unsuccessful application for constitutional or other writ – SB sought to quash decision of Ministerial delegate refusing SB’s application for nomination of Subclass 482 (Skills in Demand) visa, and sought to require Minister to determine application according to law –
SB operated restaurant in Sydney – Lodged online application with Department of Home Affairs for standard business sponsorship, which included organisational chart showing SB’s organisational structure – Separately lodged application for nomination of proposed occupation for D for Subclass 482 (Skills in Demand) visa – Minister’s delegate approved SB's application to be standard business sponsor but refused application for approval of D’s nomination – Delegate said SB had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy that position associated with nominated occupation genuine within criterion in reg 2.72(10)(a) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) –
SB sought constitutional writs based upon two claimed jurisdictional errors: first, delegate constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction; and second, delegate's decision legally unreasonable - Both said to flow from delegate's decision purportedly resting on mistaken premise no organisational chart provided – SB said, and Minister did not dispute that brought application for constitutional writs in HC because no other tribunal or court had jurisdiction, respectively, to review or judicially review decision – HC said not, by itself, exceptional reason for invoking Court’s original jurisdiction to correct asserted jurisdictional error – Nevertheless, dealing with merits of SB's application, HC said no sufficient basis to infer delegate mistakenly thought no organisational chart provided – Applications dismissed.