New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 15 May - 21 May 2025
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Pearson v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] NZSC 51 (13 May 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – P New Zealand citizen – Formerly worked as financial adviser in Perth – December 2018, Western Australia Magistrate’s Court issued warrant for her arrest on 136 theft charges – New Zealand District Court endorsed Australian warrant under s 41 Extradition Act 1999 in November 2019 – P arrested in New Zealand December 2019 – Granted bail and interim name suppression –
In October 2021, DC ruled P eligible for surrender under s 45 Extradition Act – Rejected arguments extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to time passed since alleged offences, and less coercive alternative (participating remotely from New Zealand via summons) should be pursued – DC refused application for permanent name suppression, extreme hardship threshold not met –
HC dismissed appeal and application for judicial review of DC’s surrender and name suppression decisions in May 2023 – CA refused leave to bring second appeal regarding eligibility decision in November 2023 – CA dismissed appeal from judicial review decision in September 2024 – Rejected argument alternative process available to secure appearance at trial while protecting her rights, saying Judge correct to find her eligible for surrender – Name suppression refusal upheld –
P sought leave to appeal on two grounds: first, extradition unjust or oppressive under s 8(1)(c) Extradition Act; second, standard for name suppression should be modified in extradition cases – Fundamentally, arguments reprised arguments Courts below rejected –
SC said leave criteria not established – Application dismissed.
Coulson v High Court at Auckland [2025] NZSC 52 (14 May 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented C sought leave to appeal directly to SC from HC decision striking out proposed proceeding challenging Family Court decision making protection and interim parenting orders –
C had right of appeal to CA but needed to seek time extension – Nothing C raised necessary in interests of justice for SC to hear and determine proposed appeal – No exceptional circumstances – Application dismissed.
Re Dunstan [2025] NZSC 53 (14 May 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented D in recent years brought several proceedings in variety of courts – 10 November 2023, HC said six proceedings (candidate proceedings) totally without merit – HC made general order under s 166 Senior Courts Act 2016, restraining D from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in any senior court and DC (including Family Court) without HC judge’s leave – Order in place for three years –
D appealed unsuccessfully to CA – Applied for leave to appeal to SC against CA decision –
SC said nature and scope of considerations relevant to whether proceeding “totally without merit” in context of s 166 orders may give rise to question of general or public importance which Court may wish to consider at some point – However, this not appropriate case to consider issues – Application dismissed.
Spark New Zealand Trading Ltd v [B] [2025] NZCA 153
Successful appeal by Spark against refusal of summary judgment - Company owned and controlled by B made secret payments of over $3.5m to a contractor working for Spark - In return, the contractor took steps to secure for the company an ongoing stream of work at inflated prices from Spark - Spark successfully initiated arbitration proceedings against the dishonest contractor and B's company - Spark unsuccessfully issued proceedings against B in his personal capacity contending it was entitled to summary judgment because although B was not a party to the arbitration, he was a privy of his company and accordingly bound by the arbitrator’s findings - Whether B had sufficient privity of interest with company to be regarded as its privy for the purpose of any estoppel arising from the arbitral award -
B’s company separate legal entity - Mere fact person 100 per cent shareholder of limited liability company did not make them company’s privy - In the particular circumstances test for privity of interest satisfied – B established company specifically for Spark project - Spark sole client and B direct beneficiary of company’s dishonest conduct - B had complete control of company and at all material times its relevant decisions and actions were undertaken by him – Company could not and did not act other than through B and his knowledge, state of mind and intentions were attributed to it at the arbitration - B was very much its alter ego – Judgment entered for Spark.
Creelman v R [2025] NZCA 160
Successful appeal by C against sentence of nine years' imprisonment on the charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and firearms offending - At the time C subject to a sentence of intensive supervision for offences committed in 2020 and on parole for drug dealing offences committed in 2013 – Two discrete sets of offences separated by 20 months - Combined starting points for both sets of offences 14 years and four months’ imprisonment - Uplift of six months' imprisonment because offending occurred while C subject to a sentence, on parole and on bail –
While it was open to the Judge to adopt adjusted starting points, a preferable approach would have been for the Judge to have crosschecked the combined 14-year starting point against one determined on a global basis – That would have enabled an assessment whether the cumulative starting points met the requirements of totality, even after adjustment - Total amount of methamphetamine for supply in C’s possession over period of offending 726.7 gms, placing it toward bottom of band four of Zhang, with a starting point between eight and 16 years' imprisonment – C’s role fell in the mid to lower end for the culpability range - Global starting point on the possession for supply charges should have been 10 years' imprisonment – Uplifts for firearms charges within range – Appeal allowed - C sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on the charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply – Other sentences remain.
[H] v R [2025] NZCA 155
[K] v R [2025] NZCA 165
R v W [2925] NZHC 1162 (13 May 2025) Isac J
Sentencing – R sentenced for M’s manslaughter – R aged 12 at time of offending – Previously assessed as suffering from mental impairment due to childhood abuse – Starting point five years six months – 25 per cent reduction for guilty plea; 30 per cent for youth, good rehabilitation prospects, reduced culpability given childhood experiences; and 5 per cent for time on bail – End sentence of 12 months' home detention.
U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19 (12 May 2025)
Unsuccessful appeal from CA – Concerned approach Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) should take to disputes about matters relevant to assessing national security in appeals relating to deprivation of British citizenship and refusal of leave to enter UK –
U3 British citizen until events subject to these proceedings – Had three children, all British citizens – U3, children, and then husband, lived in ISIL-controlled territory in Syria between August 2014 and October or November 2017 – 18 April 2017 Secretary of State for the Home Department, gave U3 notice under s 40(5) British Nationality Act 1981 Secretary making order under s 40(2) depriving U3 of citizenship, satisfied deprivation conducive to public good – Notice said “it is assessed that you are a British/Moroccan dual national who has travelled to Syria and is aligned with ISIL. It is assessed that your return to the UK would present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom.” – 31 May 2018 U3 appealed against deprivation decision to SIAC under s 2B Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (1997 Act) –
In 2019 children repatriated to UK – Subsequently U3’s family members cared for them – U3 remained in Syria with present husband – On 11 August 2020 U3 applied to Secretary for entry clearance granting her leave to enter UK – Application refused 18 December 2020 –
On 15 January 2021 U3 appealed against entry clearance decision to SIAC under s 2 1997 Act – Arguing decision prevented her from rejoining children, unjustified interference with right to respect for family life under article 8 European Convention on Human Rights, therefore unlawful under s 6(1) Human Rights Act 1998 – SIAC subsequently heard appeal together with appeal against deprivation decision – On 4 March 2022 SIAC dismissed both appeals – CA dismissed U3’s further appeal, endorsing SIAC’s approach of carefully evaluating all evidence in case, applying public law principles to U3’s challenge to Secretary of State’s assessment of threat she posed to national security, and refraining from substituting own national security assessment for Secretary’s – U3 appealed to SC –
SC unanimously dismissed U3’s appeal – Said SIAC approached issues in present case on essentially proper basis, specific errors lower courts identified had no effect on appeal outcome – Appeal dismissed.
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.