New Zealand Supreme Court

Agreement interpretation 

Jia v Yang [2025] NZSC 153 (10 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Related to CA upholding HC decision to grant summary judgment on Y and G’s application –

J said proposed appeal raised question of law about approach to implication of terms in agreement and extent to which approach should be iterative or sequential – 

SC said proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success given concurrent fact findings sum advanced was loan, not gift – No appearance of miscarriage of justice as understood in civil context – Application dismissed. 

Private international law, foreign judgment obtained by fraud, anti-enforcement injunction

Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 156 (10 November 2025) 

Successful appeal from CA – Results judgment, having regard to existence of live proceedings before New Zealand HC, United States Bankruptcy Court for Eastern District of Kentucky, and Kentucky CA –  

For avoidance of doubt, SC noted New Zealand CA did not disturb NZHC finding Coal Agreement fraudulent and void (by reason of being forgery), that default judgment second respondent obtained in Fayette Circuit Court (Kentucky) obtained by fraud, and purported assignments of Coal Agreement and default judgment void – Also recorded SC denied W leave to challenge findings – Reasons and costs determination to follow – Appeal allowed. 

Name suppression 

M (SC 29/2025) v R [2025] NZSC 159 (10 November 2025) 

Leave to appeal revoked – On 22 July 2025, SC granted M leave to appeal against CA upholding HC decision denying M continued interim name suppression – M charged with murder – 17 years old at time of alleged offending, 19 at time of trial – Acquitted on 23 October 2025 – 

SC accepted appeal raised issue of general or public importance – Hence leave grant – Not appropriate for appeal to continue given changed circumstances – M’s acquittal would inevitably colour issues – Issue of general or public importance identified would need to be addressed in appeal where no final resolution of charge – 

Leave revoked – Appeal hearing scheduled for 13 November 2025 vacated – Interim order continuing suppression of M’s name, address, occupation and identifying particulars for 20 days to allow M to file application for permanent name suppression. 

Sexual offending, young family members  

Chase v R [2025] NZSC 154 (11 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – C convicted after trial on seven counts of sexual offending against two young family members – Acquitted on another nine charges – Eight years three months’ imprisonment imposed – Appealed unsuccessfully to CA against conviction – Sought leave to appeal to SC – 

SC said resolving issues raised under proposed appeal grounds would not give rise to matters of principle – Would turn on application of established law to facts – No question of general or public importance arose – Application dismissed. 

Breaching protection order, assault on person in family relationship

Whitham v R [2025] NZSC 155 (11 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – W convicted after trial on, relevantly, four charges of breaching protection order; assault of person in family relationship; strangulation; kidnapping; and indecent assault – All charges related to former partner – Appealed unsuccessfully against conviction to CA, saying verdicts unreasonable because complainant’s evidence so unreliable jury could not have been sure of guilt – Sought leave to appeal to SC – 

SC said nothing W raised called CA assessment into question – Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, second recall

Bridge v The Crown [2025] NZSC 152 (12 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful second recall application – Self-represented B applied for second time to recall SC judgment of 8 September 2025 declining leave to appeal – Application dismissed. 

Water extraction and bottling

Sustainable Otakiri Inc v Whakatāne District Council [2025] NZSC 158 (12 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from CA – Related to proposed expansion of spring water extraction and bottling operation run by Ōtākiri Springs Ltd (Ōtākiri Springs) on rural property near Whakatāne – Existing operation bottled around 1.9 million litres of water per year from Ōtākiri aquifer – Proposed expansion would increase capacity to 580 million litres per year – 

Consents sought from Bay of Plenty Regional Council (to draw increased volume of water from Ōtākiri aquifer) and Whakatāne District Council (to build and operate expanded bottling plant) – Consents granted – 

Multiple parties appealed to Environment Court, challenging consents – Among them were Sustainable Ōtākiri Inc (Sustainable Ōtākiri), representing local residents, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa (Ngāti Awa), representing local iwi – Environment Court majority dismissed appeals – Sustainable Ōtākiri and Ngāti Awa appealed to HC and CA –Both Courts upheld Environment Court’s decision – Sustainable Ōtākiri and Ngāti Awa appealed to Supreme Court – 

SC majority dismissed appeals – Appeals dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, review

Re Alexander [2025] NZSC 160 (12 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful review application – Self-represented A sought review of Registrar’s decision not to accept application for leave to appeal for filing under r 5A(1)(b)(ii) Supreme Court Rules 2004 –  

SC Judge said SC did not have jurisdiction to consider merits of A’s intended application – Under s 213(3) Criminal Procedure Act, CA’s decision final and could not be appealed to SC – Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, recall

Re Slavich [2025] NZSC 161 (13 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful further recall application – Self-represented R sought recall challenging Judge’s conclusions noting current proceedings civil, not criminal – 

Judge said earlier judgments relating to criminal proceedings did not mean subsequent civil proceedings covering same ground could not be abuse of process – Recall attempt to re-argue application for review – Application dismissed. 

Uber drivers, employees, not contractors 

Rasier Operations BV v E TŪ Incorporated [2025] NZSC 162 (17 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from CA – Appeal concerned whether four Uber drivers employees in terms of definition of “employee” under s 6 Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) – Employment status under ERA gateway to important rights and obligations for employees and employers, including entitlements to minimum wage, holidays, parental leave, sick leave, bereavement leave and rights to unionise and bargain as collective – 

Uber operated two platform businesses in New Zealand – “Rides” platform connected public to drivers for on-demand transport purposes – “Eats” platform connected public, restaurants and drivers for food delivery purposes – 

Two unions (unions) sought declaration that four drivers Uber’s employees when signalled availability for work logging into Uber Driver app – Drivers succeeded in Employment Court and CA –  

SC granted Uber leave to appeal CA decision – Approved question whether drivers are employees under s 6 ERA – 

Section 6 ERA defines “employee” as someone “employed by an employer to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service” – When assessing whether employment relationship exists between two parties, court required to “determine the real nature of the relationship between them” – 

Uber denied hired drivers to work for hire or reward – Uber’s contracts with drivers and riders said Uber only supplied digital platform enabling drivers and riders to connect and form business relationships – Uber said did not itself provide passenger transport services – If SC rejected argument, as had Courts below and courts in other jurisdictions, Uber said drivers independent contractors, not employees – Said did not control drivers, who chose working hours and might use competitors’ platforms; had not integrated drivers into its business; and in substance drivers operated own businesses –  

SC unanimously dismissed appeal – Said Uber engaged drivers to deliver passenger transport services to users – No pre-trip contact between rider and driver – Instead, Uber offered rider trip fare and rider accepted offer – Neither drivers nor riders could effectively select one another and were practically anonymous vis-à-vis one another throughout entire transaction – Said Uber earned revenues by charging riders for trips, and resolved any difficulties which might arise during each trip – Passenger could not reasonably be expected to think were contracting with driver when getting into car – 

SC unanimously agreed with CA inequality of bargaining power might not enlarge meaning of “employee” – To that extent Employment Court erred – However, inequality of bargaining power might explain why contract did not reflect relationship’s real nature – 

All judges agreed drivers employees – Appeal dismissed. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Judicial review, mistake of fact, right to refuse to undergo medical treatment, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 

New Health Inc v Minister for Covid-19 Response [2025] NZCA 592

Unsuccessful appeal by NWI against dismissal of judicial review application challenging lawfulness of COVID-19 response, namely orders imposing face covering (masking) requirements and costs award of $117,889.50 –  

Appeal moot given Orders revoked and primary legislation repealed - Orders not made in reliance on material mistake of fact – In New Zealand two categories fall under heading of mistake that are an available ground of judicial review: a material mistake as to an established fact, and mistake arising as a result of a flawed factual evaluation - Appeal raised only the first category of mistake – NWI failed to demonstrate face coverings not an effective measure to contribute to preventing or limiting risk of outbreak or spread of COVID-19, as a matter of established fact - Orders did not engage and unjustifiably limit right to refuse to undergo medical treatment - Court decided it was unnecessary in context of a moot appeal, and without greater argument and analysis about international jurisprudence on the topic, to seek to determine the scope of the words "medical treatment" in s 11 NZBORA - Court satisfied that, if face covering requirements did limit s 11 right, that limitation was demonstrably justified - Orders' limitation on freedom of expression was demonstrably justified because there was a substantial body of expert opinion that face coverings were effective in restricting the spread of COVID-19 - Costs award against NHI too high - Significantly more public interest in the proceedings than HC suggested - Appropriate result was to order NHI to pay 25 per cent of respondents' total costs and disbursements in the High Court.  

Criminal, leave to appeal, admissibility of evidence, lawfulness of search warrant – Login required

[W] v R [2025] NZCA 602

Criminal, admissibility of evidence, unlawful search, balancing test – Login required

[O] v R [2025] NZCA 603

Criminal, admissibility of voice identification evidence – Login required 

[T] v R [2025] NZCA 596

New Zealand High Court

Sentencing, manslaughter 

R v Jefferson [2025] NZHC 3462 (11 November 2025) Becroft J 

Sentencing – J sentenced for manslaughter of close friend and long-time mentor S – J misidentified S as deer through thermal scope on rifle while hunting in Kaiangaroa Forest at 1 am and shot and killed him – J and S hunting illegally in forest at time – J did not have firearms license, by venturing into bush and firing gun unsupervised unlawfully in possession of firearm – Additional aggravating features failure to identify target or check firing zone; use of cannabis beforehand; initially lying to police S accidentally shot himself and extensive wider victim impact – 

Starting point five years' imprisonment – Three months added for J's eight previous firearms licensing convictions – Reductions totalling 27 months for guilty plea (25 per cent), clear and genuine remorse and participation in restorative justice (15 per cent) and, to very limited extent, previous good character, as demonstrated in small Minginui community (3 per cent) – Final sentence three years' imprisonment. 

High Court of Australia

Family law, “contracting out’

R Lawyers v Mr Daily [2025] HCA 41 (5 November 2025) 

Successful appeal from Federal Full Court –  

Mr and Ms D met in 1996 – Between 2002 and July 2005, R Lawyers, firm of solicitors, provided advice to Mr D and prepared draft financial agreement – On or around 21 July 2005, Mr and Ms D signed deed (BFA), which recited parties' intention to "contract out" of Pt VIII Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) and to enter into "binding financial agreement under s 90B" within Pt VIIIA FLA – Mr and Ms D married in late 2005 – BFA purported to provide for how, in event of marriage breakdown, property and financial resources dealt with – 

Mr and Ms D separated in September 2018 – In December 2019, Ms D sought to set aside BFA and sought order under s 79 FLA for alteration and settlement of property – In August 2021, and against contingency BFA might be set aside or unenforceable, Mr D filed application joining R Lawyers to proceedings Ms D commenced, seeking damages for negligence relating to BFA drafting, provision of advice about BFA terms, and provision of advice about FLA operation – R Lawyers denied Mr D's claims, and pleaded claims statute barred – 

Primary judge ruled BFA void for uncertainty and liable to be set aside on hardship grounds under s 90K(1)(d) FLA, made order setting aside BFA on both bases; and R Lawyers breached duty of care it owed to take reasonable care in advising Mr D; and Mr D's claim against R Lawyers in negligence not statute barred – Primary judge awarded Mr D damages for legal costs incurred in litigating whether BFA void for uncertainty but refused to award damages for Mr D's claim he was financially worse off as result of outcome of Ms D's application for orders under s 79 FLA (second component) – Full Court overturned primary judge's refusal to award damages for second component and dismissed cross-appeal from R Lawyers against primary judge's finding Mr D's negligence claims not statute barred –  

HC said second component of Mr D's claim bound to fail because, at trial, failed to adduce evidence establishing fact of loss beyond wasted litigation costs – HC said Mr D's cause of action in negligence against R Lawyers did not accrue until (at least) time of separation from Ms D and, consequently, claim not statute barred. 

Land, lease to Russian Government, legislation terminating  

Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] HCA 44 (12 November 2025) 

Special case answering various questions of law relating to Home Affairs Act 2023 (Cth) (Act) –  

On 24 December 2008, Commonwealth granted Government of the Russian Federation (Russian Government), lease of land 300 metres from Parliament House in Australian Capital Territory – Lease for 99 year term for purposes identified as "only for any diplomatic, consular or official purpose of the Government of the Russian Federation or for the purpose of an official residence for any accredited agent of that Government or for all or any number of those purposes" – Russian Government agreed to pay once only payment of "land premium" of $2,750,000, in addition to payment of survey and deposited plan fee – Russian Government commenced but had not completed construction work on land, including building and fence – 

On 15 June 2023, following press conference at Parliament House when Prime Minister explained Australian Government "received very clear security advice as to the risk presented by a new Russian presence so close to Parliament House", Commonwealth Parliament passed Act – Section 5 provided Russian Government lease "is terminated by force of this section on the commencement of this section" – Section 6 provided "[i]f the operation of this Act would result in an acquisition of property to which paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution applies from a person otherwise than on just terms, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person" – 

HC unanimously said Act properly characterised as law "for the government of any territory", within meaning of s 122 Constitution, and termination of lease by operation s 5 properly characterised as having resulted in acquisition of property within meaning and scope of s 51(xxxi) of Constitution – Act valid exercise of legislative power conferred by s 51(xxxi) Constitution to enact law with respect to acquisition of property on just terms "for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws" under s 122 Constitution – Followed Commonwealth liable to pay compensation to Russian Government under s 6 Act. 

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Contract, condition not satisfied, remedies 

King Crude Carriers SA and ors v Ridgebury November LLC [2025] UKSC 39 (12 November 2025) 

Successful appeal from CA – Primarily concerned whether legal principle in English law (legal principle) condition in contract, which would give rise to debt being owed by party if fulfilled, should be treated as fulfilled (or dispensed with or waived) where party wrongfully prevented condition from being satisfied – Long been debated whether legal principle formed part of English law – 

King Crude Carriers SA, Prince Crude Carriers SA, and Zenon Crude Carriers SA (Buyers), agreed to purchase three vessels from Ridgebury November LLC, Ridgebury Sierra LLC, and Makronissos Special Maritime Enterprise (Sellers), under three Memoranda of Agreement based on Norwegian Saleform 2012 contract, with amendments (MOAs) – 

MOAs required Buyers to lodge 10 per cent purchase price as deposits with third party deposit holder in deposit accounts and to provide all necessary documentation for this – In breach of contract, Buyers did not provide documentation – Consequently, deposit accounts could neither be opened nor could deposits be paid into them – Sellers terminated MOAs, saying legal principle they could claim deposit amounts in debt – Buyers contended Sellers’ sole remedy in damages and Sellers suffered no loss because, on assumed facts, market price for each ship higher at termination date than purchase price – 

Sellers’ debt claim succeeded in arbitration, failed in Commercial Court, but succeeded before CA – Buyers now appealed to SC, saying primarily, no legal principle in England and Wales, nor could contractual interpretation or implied term assist Sellers in debt claim here –  

Apart from refuting Buyers' primary case, Sellers had secondary case that, even if no legal principle, deposits accrued due as debt when contracts made and stipulated pre-conditions went only to time for payment – Would then follow (according to Sellers) that, as right to debt accrued, Sellers are entitled to succeed in debt action even though Buyers’ breach terminated contract –  

SC unanimously allowed Buyers’ appeal – Said Sellers’ claims could only be for damages for breach of contract, not debt – Having reviewed relevant case law and commentary concerning legal principle SC rejected Sellers’ submission principle formed part of English law – SC then considered whether Sellers’ debt claim should still succeed through either correct contractual interpretation of MOAs or implying term resulting in conditions precedent to Buyers’ debt obligations being ignored because of Buyers’ breach of contract – Said neither could assist Sellers here – Appeal allowed.