New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigant, judgment recall

Slavich v Wellington City Council [2025] NZSC 38 (15 April 2025)

Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented S applied to recall SC judgment declining leave to appeal CA decision – Application traversed matters already addressed in SC judgment – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, leapfrog appeal, recall

D (SC 3/2025) v Allan [2025] NZSC 42 (16 April 2025)

Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented D’s application for leave to directly appeal to SC from HC dismissed 4 April 2025 – No proper basis to recall decision – Application dismissed.

Cocaine importing, discharge without conviction, migrant exploitation

Ramirez-Alfonso v R [2025] NZSC 43 (16 April 2025)

Unsuccessful leave application – R pleaded guilty to single representative charge importing cocaine – Unsuccessfully sought discharge without conviction, sentenced to three years six months’ imprisonment in HC – Since been issued with deportation liability notice –

CA dismissed appeal against HC refusal to grant discharge without conviction – Sought leave to appeal to SC on issue –

SC said exploitation and vulnerability in migrant labour context potentially matter of general and public importance – Intensely factual – Here on facts issue not raised – Application dismissed.

New Zealand High Court

Interim relief, speed limits

Movement v Minister of Transport [2025] NZHC 885 (14 April 2025) Radich J

Unsuccessful interim relief application – M sought orders quashing 2024 Rule reversing speed limit reductions and requiring speed limit increases to be returned to lower limits they replaced – M raised several grounds, alleging in broad terms, in making 2024 Rule, Minister acted inconsistently with functions and objectives, was mistaken about material information or failed to take material factors into account –

Applied for interim relief under s 15 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 – HC declined – Said M had no position necessary to preserve when granting interim relief involved preventing Minister implementing broad public policy setting – Discretionary factors also weighed against granting interim relief – Application dismissed. 

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Injunctions protecting clinicians’ privacy, withdrawal of children’s life-sustaining treatment

Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15 (16 April 2025)

Unsuccessful appeals from CA – Appeals concerned injunctions connected to proceedings over whether in child’s best interests that life-sustaining treatment be withdrawn – Could injunctions be continued once proceedings ended – Injunctions purpose and effect primarily to prevent identifying persons and institutions involved in treatment and care of child in question – Practice was such injunction granted at proceedings outset for indefinite duration, continued to inhibit disclosure until successful application for variation or discharge –

In cases on appeal, NHS trusts separately issued proceedings in Family Division seeking declaration in relevant child’s best interests life-sustaining treatment be withdrawn – Declaration awarded in H case, but in A’s case child died before full application hearing took place – In both cases, court granted injunctions as described above – Identities of hospitals where children treated later disclosed, clinicians’ names remained anonymised –

Children’s parents applied, after children died, to be released from restrictions injunction imposed – Wished to tell story about what happened to them and their child, both in hospital and court, and be free to name and criticise members of clinical team caring for child – Trusts resisted parents’ applications, on primary ground making treating clinicians’ names public would create unacceptable risk of invasion of their rights to private life, exposing clinicians to media, public harassment and abuse –

Family Division President agreed trusts injunctions should be continued – CA disagreed, discharged injunctions – Trusts appealed to SC –

SC unanimously dismissed appeal, but for different reasons to CA – Said clinicians’ cause of action to protect private life had to be asserted in claim clinicians themselves brought – One Judge expressed general agreement with leading judgment, but said appropriate in some circumstances to grant injunctions to protect clinicians’ rights in proceedings trusts commenced – Appeals dismissed.

Statutory interpretation, equality act

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 (16 April 2025)

Successful appeal from Scottish Inner House – Issue SC determined in this appeal one of statutory interpretation, namely meaning of “man”, “woman” and “sex” in Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) –

Appeal arose in response to definition of “woman” in Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (ASP 2018) and associated statutory guidance – Legislation created gender representation targets to increase proportion of women on public boards in Scotland – ASP 2018 and original statutory guidance defined “woman” as including people: (i) with protected characteristic of gender reassignment; (ii) living as woman; and (iii) proposing to undergo / undergoing / who have undergone gender reassignment process –

In 2020, FW, feminist voluntary organisation that campaigns to strengthen women’s rights in Scotland, challenged guidance –

Inner House found statutory definition unlawful, involved area of law reserved to UK Parliament (equal opportunities) therefore fell outside Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence –

Scottish Ministers issued new statutory guidance challenged in this appeal – New statutory guidance said, under ASP 2018, definition of “woman” same as in EA 2010 – Section 212 EA 2010 defined “woman” as “a female of any age.” – New statutory guidance also said person with Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) recognising gender as female considered woman for ASP 2018 purposes –

GRC document that allowed trans people to change gender legally – Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) said adult could receive GRC if provided evidence have or have had gender dysphoria, have lived as acquired gender for two years and intended to continue to do so until death –

In 2022, FW challenged new statutory guidance lawfulness – FW said definition of “woman” under EA 2010 referred to biological sex, meaning trans woman GRC (biological male with GRC in female gender) not considered woman under EA 2010, and consequently ASP 2018 – Ministers said definition of “woman” under EA 2010 referred to “certificated sex”, meaning included trans women with GRC – Outer House dismissed FW’s petition – Inner House dismissed FW’s appeal – FW appealed to SC –

SC unanimously allowed appeal – Said “man”, “woman” and “sex” in EA 2010 referred to biological sex –

SC said no provision in EA 2010 expressly addressed effect of s 9(1) GRA 2004 – Therefore, careful analysis of EA 2010 provisions undertaken to decide whether biological meaning of sex intended – As matter of ordinary language, provisions relating to sex discrimination could only be interpreted as referring to biological sex – For example, provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity (ss 13(6), 17 and 18 EA) based on fact of pregnancy and giving birth –

SC said its EA 2010 interpretation did not remove protection from trans people, with or without GRC – Appeal allowed.

Supreme Court of Canada

Bankruptcy and insolvency, statutory interpretation, student loans

Piekut v Canada (Minister of Revenue) [2025] SCC 13 (17 April 2024)

Unsuccessful appeal from British Columbia CA – Appeal asked SC to clarify when government-issued student loan debts released under Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) –

P pursued several post-secondary education programmes between 1987 and 2009 – From 1987 to 1994 Bachelor of Arts, from 1994 to 1995 teaching diploma, both at University of Calgary – From 2002 to 2003 Bachelor of Education, from 2006 to 2009 Master of Education, both at University of British Columbia – P received federal student loans for all post-secondary education programs, except Master of Education, which P financed herself –

In 2013, P made consumer proposal under BIA – Consumer proposal legally binding agreement between consumer and creditors – Alternative to bankruptcy, allowing consumer to repay portion of debts over set period, while avoiding loss of assets –

Under BIA, person could not be discharged from government-issued student loan debt before seven years passed from date ceased to be student – In 2019, P applied for declaration that “ceased to be a full or part-time student” in 2003, requested student loan debt released under s 178(2) BIA – Said for purposes of s 178(1)(g)(ii) ceased to be student in 2003, when completed her last period of study funded by government student loan – Further said part-time student status during master’s degree should not be considered as date was last student because degree self-funded –

Chambers judge at British Columbia SC dismissed application – Said P ceased to be student at end of last study period in 2009 – British Columbia CA agreed and dismissed appeal –

SC majority dismissed her appeal – Applying modern principle of statutory interpretation interpreting s 178(1)(g)(ii) based on text, context, and purpose – SC said could be only one date on which bankrupt ceased to be student: last date bankrupt ceased to be student before date of bankruptcy – This “single-date” approach promoted provision’s statutory purposes to: reduce government losses on student loan defaults; ensure sustainability of student loan programs for future generations; and ensure borrowers had reasonable time after finishing studies to capitalize on all education to allow them to repay student loans, thus deterring opportunistic bankruptcies – 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.