New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 16 July - 22 July 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Armon v R [2026] NZCA 304 (9 July 2026)
Unsuccessful appeal by A against an MPI of 15 years imposed following a guilty plea to murder of his elderly mother – Appeal filed 15 working days out of time but leave granted as delay was beyond A’s control and caused no prejudice to the Crown –
A, aged 55, struck his 78-year-old mother twice with a crowbar during a dinner argument before stabbing her four times with a carving knife, penetrating her heart and left lung, and watching as she stopped breathing – He voluntarily confessed to police following Monday –
At sentencing, Grice J held life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust and that the murder engaged two s 104 categories – Murder committed with a high degree of callousness and brutality, and murder of a particularly vulnerable person due to age and health – Presumptive 17-year MPI was reduced by two years for guilty plea and remorse –
On appeal A argued Judge erred by failing to give a discrete discount for mother's provocative conduct and a further discount beyond remorse for his voluntary confession – CA held health assessors' reports described relationship as only occasionally fractious and did not disclose provocative conduct warranting a discrete discount – In non-premeditated murders there is almost always some trigger and a causal nexus is not sufficient where response was so grossly disproportionate – Confession warranted no additional discount as evidence of guilt was overwhelming –
Appeal dismissed.
Vasanthan v De Lage Landen Ltd [2026] NZCA 305 (9 July 2026)
Costs decision following abandonment of appeal by V against HC judgment declining to set aside bankruptcy notices issued by DLL – Appeal abandoned one week before scheduled hearing date –
DLL, vendor finance company, obtained default judgment against V personally for $334,161.73 following default under hire purchase agreement guaranteed by V – applications to set aside default judgment and a subsequent statutory demand dismissed, with latter described as a collateral attack on earlier DC decision – V appealed refusal to set aside bankruptcy notices –
October 2025 DLL obtained a charging order over the V Auckland property - Judgment debt was repaid in full from proceeds of sale and charging order discharged around 7 May 2026, rendering appeal moot – Despite repeated correspondence from DLL's solicitors throughout May and June inquiring whether the appeal would be abandoned, no substantive response received and V failed to file submissions as directed – DLL was accordingly forced to file a strike out application before V abandoned appeal on 18 June –
CA held appeal was devoid of merit and bound to fail, having repeatedly sought to relitigate settled matters – Late abandonment forced DLL to incur unnecessary costs including opposing a security for costs application, preparing full substantive submissions and filing strike out application – Conduct throughout motivated by delay –
Indemnity costs and disbursements of $13,959.05 awarded to DLL – Security for costs paid out to DLL.
R v Fatu [2026] NZHC 2040, 16 July 2026
F sentenced for supply of methamphetamine (at least 1 kg), possession of a precursor substance (20 litres hypophosphorous acid) with the intention it be used to make methamphetamine, and participation in an organised criminal group (Comanchero-associated syndicate) – F pleaded guilty to the offending 4 years after the charges were made and subsequent to a CA decision holding that evidence extracted by the FBI taken from the encrypted ANØM devices used to facilitate the offending was admissible –
11-year starting point – One-year uplift for other offending – One-year uplift for previous serious drug dealing convictions – 15 per cent discount for background and drug use – 15 per cent discount for guilty plea – No reductions granted for delay as it was justified by the exceptional complexity and appellate challenges – No discount for FBI conduct in obtaining ANØM evidence, as evidence admissible and no genuine human rights concern arose – End sentence 9 years 5 months' imprisonment.
R v McCafferty [2026] UKSC 20 (14 July 2026)
Successful appeal from CA – Appellants, members of Animal Rebellion, staged a protest at the entrance to a Müller dairy processing facility by chaining and gluing themselves across a private access road, preventing vehicles from entering or leaving the site for about four hours – Employees, contractors and delivery vehicles were unable to access or exit the premises –
Appellants charged with intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance under s 78(1) Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – At trial, they submitted there was no case to answer because the prosecution could not establish interference with a "right" exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, as the road was privately owned – Trial judge upheld the submission –
Crown successfully appealed to CA, which held members of public entering premises with the owner's permission were exercising a qualifying public right and ordered the trial to continue – Appellants appealed –
SC unanimously allowed appeal – Held second limb of the statutory offence required interference with the exercise or enjoyment of a legal right held by the public generally, not a private licence or permission granted by a landowner – Members of public using the private access road had only a revocable licence to enter the premises, not a legal right –
Common law offence of public nuisance had historically protected public rights, such as the public's right to use a highway, and neither the wording nor legislative history of s 78 suggested Parliament intended to extend the offence to obstruction of private land simply because members of the public were permitted to enter it –
Court rejected Crown’s argument that interference with access to premises open to the public was sufficient – As the prosecution had proceeded solely on the second limb of the offence and had not sought to amend the indictment or rely on the alternative limb concerning serious harm to the public, an essential element of the charge was absent – Trial judge correctly found there was no case to answer – CA order set aside and acquittals restored.
Saxon Woods Investments Limited and others (Respondents) v Costa (Appellant) [2026] UKSC 21, 14 July 2026
Appeal on whether an individual director, who genuinely believed his preferred strategy would best promote the company’s success could secretly pursue that strategy, contrary to the agreed approach of the board, without breaching his fiduciary duties –
Spring Media Investments Ltd had agreed, through a shareholders’ agreement, to work towards an exit by 31 December 2019 – Appellant director, C believed a later sale would achieve a better return – Rather than raise that view openly with the board, he controlled the sale process, excluded other directors and shareholders from involvement, misled the board about compliance with the agreed exit strategy, and delayed the process – No exit occurred before the Covid-19 pandemic, after which the opportunity for a beneficial sale was lost –
Saxon Woods, a minority shareholder, brought an unfair prejudice petition – Trial judge found unfair prejudice but held that C had not breached his duty under s 172 because he sincerely believed he was acting in the company’s best interests, accepting the argument that the requirement of good faith means that the director’s thought process rather than conduct fell within the obligation of good faith - CA found powerful judicial statements to the contrary reversing the conclusion and ordering an unconditional buy-out of Saxon Woods’ shares – C appealed –
Appeal dismissed – C had breached his fiduciary duty under s 172 Companies Act 2006 –
SC held s 172 required not only that a director genuinely consider what would promote the success of the company, but also that the director act in good faith towards the company – duty was rooted in the pre-existing fiduciary duty of loyalty and must be interpreted consistently with common law and equitable principles under ss 170(3) and (4) –
A company’s constitution typically entrusts management to the board collectively, not to an individual director acting alone – An individual director who disagrees with the board must raise the disagreement openly, discuss it with fellow directors, and assist the board in reaching a collective decision – He cannot secretly pursue his own strategy in a way that subverts the board’s agreed course –
C’s conduct was disloyal to the company – By concealing his strategy, misleading the board, and frustrating the agreed exit process, he acted in bad faith towards the company, plainly abusing his powers, even if he subjectively believed his approach would ultimately benefit it – Statutory duty in s 172 did not give a dissenting director carte blanche to act covertly or disloyally –
CA was therefore entitled to set aside the trial judge’s discretionary remedy and substitute an immediate unconditional buy-out order – appeal dismissed.
Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc 2026 SCC 260 (17 July 2026)
Unsuccessful appeal – SC confirmed methods of medical treatment cannot be patented under Canadian law as professional skills are not patentable – However, dismissed appeal and upheld validity of J's patent for specific dosing regimens of injectable antipsychotic drug –
J developed injectable drug for treatment of schizophrenia in early 1990s and obtained patent in 2016 covering specific dosing regimens designed to achieve optimal drug concentration in patients – P, generic drug manufacturer, sought approval to market generic version in 2020 – J opposed, alleging patent infringement – P argued patent invalid as protecting methods of medical treatment – Federal Court upheld patent validity – Federal Court of Appeal dismissed P's appeal – P appealed to SC –
SC majority confirmed patent that focuses on method of medical treatment invalid as essentially seeking to monopolise professional medical skill and judgment – 3 general observations to guide analysis: (1) focus on whether invention itself depends on professional skill and judgment, not whether skill and judgment would be applied in deciding whether to use it; (2) the more treatment must be tailored to individual patients, the more likely it will be considered method of medical treatment; (3) the more medical professionals would be expected to develop or improve subject matter, the more likely it is method of medical treatment – Observations not exhaustive and do not replace case-by-case analysis – J's dosing regimens did not require exercise of professional skill and judgment – physicians must decide whether treatment appropriate for individual patient but patent itself specifies how regimen is administered – Patent valid.
Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Bloomberg LP and another and another matter [2026] SGHC 147, (14 July 2026)
Consolidated defamation proceedings where S and L sued Bloomberg LP and journalist DL over a Bloomberg article concerning secrecy in Singapore Good Class Bungalow transactions –
HC held the article referred to both claimants and bore the defamatory meaning that they had taken advantage of gaps in checks, balances, or disclosure requirements to conduct their property transactions non-transparently, and to avoid scrutiny extending to possible money laundering – HC rejected the defendants’ reliance on “Reynolds privilege” (Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd), which is a development of the common law defence in England of qualified privilege for responsible journalism on a matter of public interest, holding that it was not part of Singapore law and, in any event, would not have been made out on the facts – Aggravating factors included malice, material falsehoods, inadequate opportunity for comment, and Bloomberg’s removal of the article’s paywall -
In assessing damages, the court confirmed the approach that the higher the standing of the claimant and the institution they represent, the greater the impact of defamation and injury and so the higher the damages – At the material time both claimants held Ministerial posts in the Singapore government (as they still do albeit different portfolios) –
Each claimant was awarded S$230,000, comprising S$170,000 in general damages and S$60,000 in aggravated damages, with Bloomberg and DL jointly and severally liable – Injunction also granted.