New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 16 April - 22 April 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Liu v Wu [2026] NZSC 28 (14 April 2026)
Partly successful leave application – Approved questions: (a) whether CA erred in determining July 2018 deed found to be entered into by parties resulted from unlawful threats L made against W was illegal and void, rather than voidable because entered into under duress; and (b) whether CA erred in failing to determine, had deed’s validity properly been assessed being voidable for duress and not void for illegality, deed was affirmed by L, as HC ruled – Leave on third ground declined – L wanted to argue W out of time under Limitation Act 2010 to raise illegality on appeal – Insufficient success prospects to warrant leave in circumstances where: (a) original pleading broad enough to accommodate both duress and illegality; and (b) claim could in any event be viewed as ancillary under s 50 Limitation Act – Application partly granted.
Re Sax [2026] NZSC 29 (14 April 2026)
Unsuccessful Registrar review application – Self-represented S sought to apply for leave to appeal and apply out of time –Registrar declined to accept for filing –S applied to review Registrar’s decision –
S and proposed respondent, M, rabbit breeders – S alleged M spread false and damaging information about rabbit breeding operation – Applied to DC under Harassment Act 1997 for orders restraining M from harassing her on social media and elsewhere – Judge struck proceeding out under s 32 of Harassment Act, concluding claim frivolous and vexatious –
Numerous applications of various kinds followed, culminating in applications to SC –
SC Judge dismissed application to review Registrar’s decision – Said SC did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against CA refusal to recall judgment declining leave to appeal – Also, underlying application to waive security for costs lacked merit, and no substantive basis on which CA decision on this could properly be challenged – Application dismissed.
Ronaki-Wihapi v R [2026] NZSC 30 (15 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – R-W convicted after jury trial of two homicides, manslaughter and murder, relating to P – On appeal, CA concluded R-W could not be convicted twice of culpable homicide relating to same victim – CA quashed conviction and sentence for manslaughter but dismissed appeal against murder conviction – R-W sought leave to appeal against murder conviction –
SC said CA addressed R-W’s argument regarding double jeopardy in its decision declining application for recall of earlier judgment – Having considered principles, said error here essentially charging error – SC said nothing R-W raised suggested error in CA assessment –
In circumstances, plain CA properly addressed erroneous entry of homicide conviction on first count – SC not satisfied there was appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.
UV Ltd v AB Ltd as Trustee of the CD Trust and the EF Trust [2026] NZSC 31 (15 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – UV Ltd and WX (UV), applied for leave to appeal from CA dismissing appeal – In general terms, appeal concerned whether steps needed to be taken in civil proceedings to prevent publication of identifying material about UV – UV maintained steps sought necessary to avoid breaching suppression order made in DC criminal proceedings –
UV said proposed appeal would involve considering two principal questions: First, what constituted “publication” within the meaning of s 195 Criminal Procedure Act – Second whether non-publication order should have been made in civil proceedings –
SC said proposed appeal would essentially reprise arguments in CA – Said proposed appeal would not raise questions of general or public importance but, rather, would turn on application of settled principles to specific set of facts – Application dismissed.
Webster v R [2026] NZSC 32 (16 April 2026)
Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal.
Garden v R [2026] NZSC 35 (17 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – G sought leave to appeal from CA dismissing appeal against conviction on one charge of indecent assault – G convicted following jury trial and sentenced to 220 hours community work, 12 months’ intensive supervision, no-contact condition and judicial monitoring, and required to pay $750 in reparations –
SC did not accept either proposed appeal ground satisfied leave criteria – Application dismissed.
Jacques v Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited [2026] NZCA 129
Unsuccessful appeal by J granting Wilson Parking summary judgment in the amount of $456,000 – Wilson Parking advanced $570,000 to Digital Advertising Ltd under two agreements dated 28 March 2024 in respect of the construction of digital billboards at the premises of Wilson Parking – J, who was sole director of Digital Advertising, guaranteed performance of the agreements - The advance was to be drawn down in three tranches and to be repaid with interest in monthly instalments - After the first two tranches were paid to Digital Advertising J emailed Wilson Parking to say that Digital Advertising was in default - J proposed to manage the breach by providing three options for Wilson Parking to consider – J spoke to Wilson Parking’s Chief Executive Officer on a without prejudice basis over the phone - J also corresponded with Wilson Parking’s in-house counsel who had contacted him to obtain more information – J continued to correspond with Wilson Parking’s inhouse counsel who emailed J to advise that pending management’s decision payments remained due - Wilson Parking appointed receivers to Digital Advertising and made demands on both Digital Advertising and J – Wilson Parking successfully commenced summary judgment proceedings in the HC which J now appeals – J’s argument on appeal was that a meeting of the minds was reached between him and Wilson Parking’s chief executive and inhouse counsel in which they agreed that the obligations under the agreements would be suspended –
J’s argument rejected - It was at odds with the contemporaneous records of the conversations - The agreements expressly required any variations to be in writing and signed – J’s claims lacked veracity and he had no arguable defence to Wilson Parking’s claim – Appeal dismissed – Indemnity costs awarded as per the agreements.
P v R [2026] NZCA 132
Jetconnect Limited v Tighe-Umbers [2026] NZCA 115
Successful application for leave to appeal a decision of the Employment Court finding that Jetconnect had unjustifiably terminated PT's employment – Jetconnect dismissed PT from his employment as a pilot for non-compliance with the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 - PT opposed the application - Employment Court Judge proceeded on the basis that Jetconnect’s non-compliance with cl 3(4) of sch 3A Employment Relations Act 2000 meant PT’s dismissal was unjustified and no further analysis under s 103A was required - The Court considered the correctness of this approach raised a matter of general or public importance even though sch 3A had been repealed on 26 November 2024 -
Application for leave to appeal was granted on the following question of law: Does noncompliance with cl 3(4) of sch 3A to the Employment Relations Act 2000 of itself mean that a purported termination under cl 3(3) constitutes an unjustifiable dismissal under s 103A?
Liow v Martelli [2026] NZCA 101
Unsuccessful appeal from a High Court decision remitting a dispute to arbitration - The parties were owners of neighbouring properties under a cross-lease - The respondents sought consent to structural alterations which the appellants refused - The dispute was referred to arbitration where the arbitrator applying Smallfield v Brown held that consent had not been unreasonably withheld - On appeal to the High Court, the question of law was whether consent is unreasonably withheld only where the benefit to the party seeking change is substantial and the proposed alteration would produce only trifling detriment to the cross-lessor - The High Court held that this was not the correct test and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator – Appellants appealed -
The Smallfield v Brown test is wrong in law - The words of the alterations covenant do not contain the constraints that test imposes, nor are those constraints appropriate in light of the covenant’s context and purpose - In a cross-lease development, the lessors are all of the owners as tenants in common of the estate in fee simple (or other underlying estate), and it is the lessors jointly who must consent or reasonably withhold consent - Given that cross-leases commonly endure for long terms, alterations will not only be desired but necessary - Whether consent has been unreasonably withheld is a question of fact to be approached by asking whether a reasonable lessor, having regard to the interests of all lessees and the context of the cross-lease, could withhold consent - The Court declined to impose rigid rules and provided further guidance –
The matter was properly remitted to the arbitrator - The arbitrator’s reasoning was predicated on the Smallfield approach, and he had indicated that he may have reached a different result under a different test - The Court was not satisfied the outcome would necessarily be the same absent the error – Appeal dismissed.
Hopper v State of Victoria [2026] HCA 11 (15 April 2026)
Answer to question of law – Part 12 Electoral Act 2002 (Vic) invalid because, operating with "the nominated entity exception" in para (j) of definition of "gift" in s 206(1) Electoral Act, impermissibly burdened implied freedom of political communication, contrary to Commonwealth Constitution –
Part 12 Electoral Act placed restrictions and obligations on certain "regulated persons or entities", including registered political parties and candidates –
Each of plaintiffs candidate intending contest 2026 Victorian State election – Claimed parts of Part 12 placing general cap on political donations and providing for “nominated entity” exception invalid because impermissibly burdened implied freedom of political communication in Commonwealth Constitution –
HC ruled general cap in Pt 12 operating with nominated entity exception impermissibly infringed implied freedom – It not being permissible to sever any Part 12 provisions to preserve its validity, Part 12 wholly invalid.
Orsted West of Duddon Sands (UK) Ltd (now named Orsted Schroders Greencoat WODS Holdco Limited) v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2026] UKSC 12 (15 April 2026)
Successful HMRC appeal from CA – O owned and operated windfarms off English coast – During planning and designing windfarms, spent considerable sums on surveys and studies investigating many different aspects of environment in which windfarms would be constructed – Question raised in appeal whether costs qualified for capital allowances under s 11(4) Capital Allowances Act 2001 (section 11(4)) – If so, O would be entitled to deduct percentage of costs from income of trade each year when computing taxable profit –
Capital expenditure qualified under s 11(4) if certain conditions met – One condition “it is capital expenditure on the provision of plant” – HMRC accepted windfarm generation assets treated as single item “plant” and expenditure on reports and studies capital in nature – Issue whether costs incurred in obtaining surveys and studies to investigate environment incurred “on” provision of windfarms –
First-tier Tribunal ruled most expenditure on studies and reports in dispute qualified for capital allowances – Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC’s appeal saying none qualified for the allowance – CA allowed O’s appeal ruling all qualified – HMRC appealed to SC –
SC unanimously allowed appeal – Said ordinary meaning of words used in s 11(4)(a) indicated narrow test – Requirement expenditure be “on” provision of plant required close connection between expenditure and plant provided – Phrases used in other statutory provisions such as “in connection with” or “relating to” or “with a view to” connoted looser nexus than the word “on” – Appeal allowed.