New Zealand Supreme Court

Crown minerals, “for the benefit of New Zealand”

Climate Clinic Aotearoa Inc v Minister of Energy and Resources [2025] NZSC 197 (19 December 2025)

Unsuccessful appeal from CA – Focused on interpretation of phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” in Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) - Specifically, judgment addressed whether phrase required decision makers under ss 24 and 25 to consider climate change as mandatory relevant consideration when deciding whether to offer and grant petroleum exploration permits – Also considered nature and extent of obligation to have regard to Treaty of Waitangi principles –

HC dismissed claim – CA dismissed appeal – SC unanimously dismissed appeal – Agreed that, properly interpreted, reference to “the benefit of New Zealand” in s 1A(1) CMA not simply recognising benefits flowing from mining – Followed when deciding under s 24 whether to offer exploration or mining permits for public tender, decision maker required to address whether offer for “the benefit of New Zealand” – Said climate change mandatory relevant consideration – SC said decision maker had considered benefits – Appeal dismissed.

Climate change, legislation structure

Smith v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 198 (19 December 2025)

Successful leave application – Approved question is whether CA correct to dismiss appeal – SC said complex appeal – S challenged structure of Climate Change Response Act 2002 and certain Crown decisions, acts or omissions – Appeal raised issues about proper scope of judicial function in vindicating claimed rights – Leave granted in general terms but SC invited parties to confer with view to narrowing appeal scope and more clearly defining issues arising.

Climate change, Commission advice

Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc v Climate Change Commission [2025] NZSC 200 (22 December 2025)

Unsuccessful leave application – LCANZI brought judicial review proceedings challenging aspects of CCC’s advice and Minister’s decisions – Courts below rejected LCANZI’s challenges – LCANZI sought leave to appeal to SC –

Challenged three levels of CCC emissions budget advice and decisions – SC said although New Zealand’s response to climate change obviously of considerable public importance, not satisfied arguments relating to emissions budgets and other issues had sufficient prospects of success to warrant leave – Application dismissed.

Leave application, sentencing

Naidu v R [2025] NZSC 202 (22 December 2025)

Partly successful leave application – N’s application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed – Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted – Approved question whether CA correct approach to sentence.

Birth certificate correction

P (SC 73/2025) v Family Court [2025] NZSC 201 (23 December 2025)

Unsuccessful leave application – P sought leave to appeal CA decision upholding HC striking out P’s application for judicial review of Family Court decision – Family Court had struck out P’s application to correct birth certificate –

SC said P’s long list of allegations against C should not distract from issue at proceeding core – Whether open to Family Court to find on evidence before it C’s claim to be P’s mother should be preferred over P’s claim that she was not – No proper basis upon which SC, on third review, could interfere in that Court’s evaluation – Not in interests of justice for SC to hear proposed appeal – No risk of miscarriage of justice, no matter of general or public importance – Application dismissed.

High Court of New Zealand

Injunction, breach of confidence 

Neighbourly Ltd v Unknown Defendants [2026] NZHC 1 (5 January 2026) Johnstone J 

Successful urgent without notice application for orders requiring deletion and non-use/dissemination of confidential member information downloaded from online platform and listed for sale on dark web – Information would assist identity fraud – Application granted in broad terms, addressed to those with unauthorised access to data – Applicant’s inability to identify defendants no impediment – Prima facie case of breach of confidence and balance of convenience favour orders being granted.  

Injunction, confidential information  

Manage My Health Ltd v Unknown Defendants [2026] NZHC 2 (6 January 2026) Isac J 

Successful urgent injunction application restraining publication or use of data stolen in cyber-attack on MMH’s online patient portal – HC said strong case patient data exfiltrated unlawfully and for ransom purposes – Overall interests of justice clearly favoured protecting confidential information belonging to patient and GP practices in circumstances.