Appeal against sentence – H a "catcher" for a drug importation syndicate pleaded guilty to importing MDMA, ketamine and an unknown drug, offering to supply LSD, possession for supply of LSD and ketamine, and various possession charges – DC sentenced H to 6 years' imprisonment, based on a global starting point of 10 years – H argued a lack of parity with co-offender (G) who was sentenced on a starting point of 6.5 years for importing offending that was more serious than H's, and with co-offenders (V & K) sentenced on a 12 year global starting point for offending including their own MDMA manufacturing and retail operation –  

CA held the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on H's LSD-dealing offending, which arose from the syndicate's collapse rather than from H's role within it – Also held sentencing judge overstated the significance of the LSD quantity involved – Found H had an equivalent role to G but a less serious profile of importing offending (fewer importations, no Class A drug, lower MDMA quantities), and a materially less serious role and offending profile than V & K's – CA held a reasonable independent observer would see H's 10 year starting point as unjustified and unfair by comparison – Global starting point reduced to 8.5 years, applying the same 40 per cent reduction for guilty plea and personal mitigating factors –    

Appeal allowed – Sentences of 6 years on the importation charges set aside and substituted with concurrent sentences of 5 years 1 month – Other sentences unchanged.  

Testamentary capacity, undue influence, lucid interval, will validity, indemnity costs  

Li v Smith [2026] NZCA 436 (14 September 2026)  

Unsuccessful appeal by L against HC's declaration that 2023 Will made by FL from hospital bed, five days after an unsuccessful operation to remove a malignant bladder tumour, was invalid for lack of testamentary capacity – Probate had been granted of FL's prior 2010 Will under which L, a longstanding friend and former partner around 35 years his junior, received nothing –   

2023 Will gifted L $500,000, representing a very large proportion of FL’s cash assets of around $650,000, and gave a share of residue to L's 7 year old son D – FL's children, several of whom had health problems or relied on him for accommodation, received reduced or no provision – 

Hospital notes recorded sustained delirium, agitation, confusion and disorientation – Two nurses declined to witness the will on the basis FL was intermittently confused – Will was prepared by Y, a retired lawyer whose career had been brief and ignominious, who asked almost entirely leading questions, described FL’s estate as huge and took no steps to assess FL's capacity – $500,000 bequest emerged from direct prompting by L herself, who had suggested figures of $50,000 to $100,000 before FL whispered "500" –  

CA held L fell far short of pointing to cogent evidence of testamentary capacity to counter contemporaneous hospital notes evidencing ongoing delirium – Lucid interval/moments principle discussed – FL was drowsy and largely confirming statements put to him – Was almost impossible to find that FL appreciated extent of his property or moral claims on him – 2023 Will displayed a lack of moral responsibility and differed materially from instructions FL had given only days earlier –  

Appeal dismissed – Indemnity costs of $50,763.69 plus further actual costs awarded against L.  

New Zealand High Court

Sentencing, preventive detention, violent and sexual offending

R v L [2026] NZHC 2828 (17 September 2026)  

Sentencing – L found guilty of 34 serious violent and sexual offences against five whānau members – HC adopted global starting point of 18–20 years' imprisonment, with 19.5 years starting point – Aggravating factors include significant breach of trust, offending against own children, victim vulnerability, serious violence and threats to kill accompanying sexual offending, cruelty and significant harm to victims –  

One year uplift for prior conviction for burglary, assault, and sexual violation against the same partner victim – Some present offending committed while on parole for that offending – Deduction of 8 months for time spent on EM bail and up to 10 per cent for background factors –

Crown sought preventive detention, opposed by defence in favour of finite sentence of 15-17 years with an 8-10 year MPI – Court satisfied preventive detention criteria met given pattern of serious sexual and violent offending since 2000, expert assessment of high risk of further sexual and violent offending, continued denial of sexual offending, refusal to engage in relevant rehabilitation, and inadequacy of an extended supervision order to manage risk –  

Preventive detention imposed on all sexual offences with an 8 year MPI – Concurrent 3 year terms of imprisonment imposed on all other offences – Protection order made under s 123B Sentencing Act 2002 in favour of all five victims.  

Insurance, directors’ and officers’ liability, policy extension, personal profit or advantage   

Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) v QBE Insurance (International) Pty Ltd [2026] NZHC 2716 (7 September 2026)  

Extent of defendant’s liability under a Directors and Officers Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance Policy issued by the first defendant but for which a second defendant assumed all outstanding obligations –  

In 2023 SC ordered the four directors of M to pay M $39.8M in compensation plus interest – Directors were Insured Persons under the policy – M asserted a statutory charge over the money - QBE paid just under $20M to M in response to the SC judgment – Issue in this case was whether QBE had discharged the full extent of its liability – QBE had declined to pay a further $1M available in respect of one of the directors, Y – QBE relied on cl 3.7 of the Policy, which excluded a claim where a final judgment determined that an insured person committed a wrongful act intended to, and which did in fact, result in personal profit or advantage to which that person was not legally entitled, and the wrongful act was material to the adjudicated cause of action –  

Court held that cl 3.7 was not engaged – Although the judgments established that Y breached his duties, was in a conflict position, gave misleading assurances of support, was more culpable than the other directors, and had benefited as a R shareholder from funds previously extracted from M, they did not clearly and unequivocally determine that a wrongful act material to the adjudicated breaches from 31 January 2011 was intended to, and did in fact, produce a personal profit or advantage for Y to which he was not legally entitled – The earlier outflow of funds to R was not the wrongful act on which the SC’s findings under ss 135 and 136 Companies Act 1993 were based – Nor did continuation of trading on unenforceable assurances establish that Y in fact obtained, or intended to obtain, the required personal advantage –  

QBE was therefore required to pay the additional $1M under extension 5.1 – QBE was not obliged to indemnify M for any GST payable by M – Question of interest on any judgment sum was reserved.

GST, deemed supply, insurance payment to third-party claimant, statutory charge, meaning of “under a contract of insurance”  

Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZHC 2715 (7 September 2026)  

Following findings that four former directors had breached duties owed to M, their insurer QBE paid $19,956,930.78 directly to M on the directors’ behalf under a Directors and Officers Liability and Company Reimbursement Insurance Policy – M had asserted a statutory charge over the insurance money under s 9 Law Reform Act 1936 – M included the payment in its GST return, then sought to reduce its declared sales and income on the basis that the receipt was not subject to GST –  

Issue was whether the payment received directly from QBE was deemed consideration for a supply under s 5(13) Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, notwithstanding that M was not the party whose insured liability triggered payment under the policy –  

Section 5(13) applies where a registered person receives a payment under a contract of insurance, whether or not that person is a party to the contract, to the extent that the payment relates to a loss incurred in the course or furtherance of the recipient’s taxable activity – The wording contained tension: receipt “under” a contract ordinarily suggests a contractual entitlement, whereas the express inclusion of a recipient who is not a party indicates that direct contractual privity is unnecessary – M’s entitlement to the proceeds arose from its statutory charge, and its damages claim against the directors existed independently of the Policy –  

Court held s 5(13) imposed GST liability on M as the actual recipient of the payment – Payment was made under a contract of insurance even though M’s right to receive it arose through a statutory charge and M was not the insured person whose liability was indemnified – Relevant loss was M’s loss as the injured third party, incurred in the course or furtherance of its taxable activity – The phrase “whether or not the person is a party to the contract” was intended to capture direct payments by insurers to third-party claimants –  

M was required to account for GST on the $19,956,930.78 payment – Liquidators’ claim was dismissed – Commissioner was entitled to costs on a 2B basis.

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Contract, damages, third-party loss, transferred loss, Scots law  

Forthwell Ltd v Pontegadea UK Ltd [2026] UKSC 33 (17 September 2026)

Appeal to UK SC from Court of Session Inner House (Scotland) on issue of whether a party to a contract may recover damages for breach of contract in respect of losses sustained by a third party –  

Losses had been sustained when the tenant, F, to a Glasgow building had, against the conditions in the lease contract with respondent P, had sublet to a restaurant business, L, which subsequently closed at the height of Covid restrictions – During the closure the building was damaged first by flooding and then a fire leading to a dispute between F and P about the nature, scope and liability of repairs and meaning L was unable to reopen –  

F claimed trading losses suffered by its wholly owned subsidiary L, which occupied leased restaurant premises under a licence – A commercial judge upheld their claim which was then appealed by P to the CSIH which allowed their appeal determining F was not entitled to recover damages for L’s losses – F then appealed to the UKSC –  

In a unanimous decision the appeal was dismissed with all Justices determining a contracting party may ordinarily recover damages only for loss it has itself suffered – The proposed exception, based on Lord Clyde’s observations in Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd, permitting recovery of a third party’s loss subject to an obligation to account, formed no part of Scots law and was unsupported by the law of England and Wales – It was impermissibly wide, because the third party’s involvement need not have been contemplated when the contract was made, and insufficiently certain, because a requirement that the third party have a “material interest” in performance was not workable – Existing statutory rights and recognised exceptions left no sufficient justification for a further exception –  

Although the parties settled before the hearing and the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal, the Court proceeded because settlement was not conditional on withdrawal and the appeal raised a point of general public importance on which authoritative guidance was desirable. 

Liverpool Employment Tribunal

Employment,  whistleblowing,  protected disclosures,  detriment, remedy  

Crayton and Jones v Countess of Chester Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Employment Tribunal (Liverpool) Case Nos 2403670/2024 and 2403674/2024 (4 September 2026)  

Determination of remedy following an earlier liability judgment that found respondent NHS Trust had subjected two porters to detriments because of protected disclosures concerning practices in its mortuary – Both claimants had been inappropriately interrogated by their line manager within a confidential speaking-up process – Their identity had been revealed despite a policy assurance of anonymity – First claimant had also had his mortuary access removed for several hours, conveying a lack of trust – Remedy decision was confined to loss attributable to those established detriments and excluded further alleged detriments raised in later proceedings –  

First periods of sickness absence were attributable in part to the proven whistleblowing detriments – Applying the “but for” test under s 49 Employment Rights Act 1996 and Roberts v Wilsons Solicitors LLP, the Tribunal apportioned wage loss by reference to the proportion of alleged detriments that had been established: 1/3 for the first claimant and 1/4 for the second – Later sickness absences were not compensable as wage loss on the evidence before the Tribunal – No pension-loss award was made because NHS Trust had continued full employer contributions; compensation for wage loss enabled the claimants to make up reduced employee contributions –  

Injury to feelings and other heads of damage were calculated using the applicable 2024-25 Vento bands – First claimant’s two detriments, together with the continuing effect of workplace messages and the rejection of the grievance, justified a middle-band award of £15,000 – Second claimant’s single detriment, compounded by rejection of the grievance but unsupported by evidence of similar messages or rumours, justified a lower-band award of £11,000 – Although both claimants experienced depression, received treatment and were absent from work, they did not prove a distinct personal injury separate from injury to feelings – Aggravated damages were refused because the proven conduct was not shown to be high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive – No ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) uplift was available because no failure to follow an applicable disciplinary or grievance procedure was established –   

First claimant awarded £2,121.85 net for wage loss and £15,000 for injury to feelings –Second claimant awarded £1,439.17 net for wage loss and £11,000 for injury to feelings.