New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 18 June - 24 June 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Easton v Wellington City Council & Ors [2026] NZCA 249 (15 June 2026)
Unsuccessful applications for extension of time to appeal – E, applicant in person, had two HC proceedings struck out as abuse of process – First proceeding a judicial review of Council and Crown decisions – Claim spanning New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 consistency with Care of Children Bill 2003, Shelly Bay land dispute, Fast-track Approvals Bill, and advance payment of superannuation before eligibility age – Statement of claim "rambling, disconnected and diffuse" – Incoherent in parts – Six month delay – Second proceeding challenged Crown sovereignty under Treaty of Waitangi seeking declarations of "Perfect Title" for non-signatory chiefs' descendants and ongoing rent payments – Statement of claim "incomprehensible" – No valid cause of action disclosed – Only 3 days late but subsequent conduct included unsubstantiated perjury allegations against judges and a government minister and misconceived reliance on procedural rules – Whether extension should be granted despite clearly hopeless appeals and applicant's litigant in person status –
Appeals clearly hopeless – Applied principles in Almond v Read – Pattern of conduct itself an abuse of process – Applications declined.
Liao v Liao [2026] NZCA 250 (11 June 2025)
Unsuccessful appeal against finding that property purchase contribution was a gift – Appellant parents contributed 10 per cent towards their daughter's purchase of an investment property registered in her sole name – When parents later asked her to transfer the property to them she refused – Parents alleged daughter held property on resulting trust – HCJ held the presumption of advancement applied (so the contribution was presumed to be a gift) and that the presumption had not been displaced – Parents appealed arguing the presumption of advancement no longer applies to adult children, whether dependent or independent, and that the Judge erred in finding the presumption applied or otherwise not finding a trust –
Presumption of advancement extends to adult children in NZ – CA declined to follow Pecore v Pecore, where the majority confined the presumption of advancement to minor children – Preferred dissenting reasoning of Abella J that the presumption rests not only on parental obligation but on the unique, enduring emotional ties of the parental relationship – Noted divergence in NZ case law but held the presumption remains part of NZ law and applies to adult children, dependent or independent –
Subsequent conduct admissible – Resulting trust displaced on the evidence – Subsequent statements and conduct (including LINE messages) are generally admissible on a transferor's intention, contrary to the position in Australia – On the totality of evidence (parties' circumstances, repayment of a third party's contribution, daughter and her husband meeting mortgage shortfalls, LINE message exchanges), the presumption of a resulting trust was displaced without need to resort to the presumption of advancement – Contribution was a gift – Appeal dismissed.
District Court at Nelson v Thomas [2026] NZCA 252 (15 June 2026)
Wairarapa Moana Ki Pouākani Inc v Attorney-General [2026] NZCA 255 (16 June 2026)
Unsuccessful appeal by WM against HC refusal to grant declaration of inconsistency (DOI) under inherent jurisdiction – WM, representing hapū descended from original owners of Lake Wairarapa and Lake Ōnoke, sought declaration of inconsistency under s 27(3) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) arguing the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Act 2022 (Settlement Act) unjustifiably limited its access to justice regarding its Wai 85 resumption claim over the Pouākani block – HC held it had jurisdiction to hear DOI proceeding but declined to exercise it, dismissing under inherent jurisdiction – WM argued should have proceeded to substantive hearing once jurisdiction was found – A-G cross-supported dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, relying on ouster clause in s 15(4) Settlement Act –
HC did not have jurisdiction to hear DOI proceeding – Wide interpretation of ouster clause preferred as consistent with the plain text, statutory context discharging Crown liability and purpose of finality in Treaty settlements – No inconsistency with s 27(3) NZBORA, which guaranteed procedural parity with Crown but not substantive rights of access – Principle of legality engaged via common law right of access to courts, but Parliament's intent to oust jurisdiction sufficiently clear – Section 15(5) Settlement Act savings clause held inapplicable, as the DOI proceeding had not concerned interpretation/implementation of the settlement – Appeal dismissed.
R v Ryder [2026] NZHC 1726 (17 June 2026)
R plead guilty to manslaughter of her 19 month old son (T) – Direct cause of death was from complications from starvation and dehydration – T had significant medical vulnerabilities arising from extreme prematurity, cerebral palsy, compromised vision and other developmental complications and required ongoing specialist and community health support – Prior to T's death there had been reduced engagement with health services – Indication sentence with starting point of 6 years and 3 months given in April 2026 based on comparable manslaughter by neglect authorities –
Offending involved a serious breach of parental duty and trust – Victim was a highly vulnerable child with complex care needs – R failed to ensure adequate feeding, hydration and medical assistance, despite observing weight loss and changes in condition – Her omissions directly caused the child’s death – Court treated the child’s vulnerability, the extended neglect, and the failure to seek timely medical help as aggravating features – Not a case of infanticide –
Court allowed reductions of 10 per cent for an early guilty plea, 5 per cent for remorse, 5 per cent for rehabilitation prospects and 25 per cent for personal background and addiction issues – End sentence 3 years 5 months imprisonment.
Atkins v Commissioners for his Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v HFFX LLP [2026] UKSC 17 (17 June 2026)
Unsuccessful appeals from CA – Concerned taxation of profits allocated under deferred remuneration arrangement operated by foreign exchange trading business HFFX LLP – HFFX operated Capital Allocation Plan (CAP) under which profits allocated to corporate member, GSA Member Ltd (GSAM), were retained and invested before being returned to LLP as “Special Capital” for possible reallocation to individual members – Although individual members received indicative allocations, GSAM retained genuine discretion whether and in what amount to make reallocations, subject to “Braganza” principles –
HMRC contended under s 850 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (ITTOIA) profits allocated to GSAM should be treated as profit shares of individual members because they formed part of LLP's profit-sharing arrangements – First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and CA rejected that argument – HMRC appealed to SC –
In alternative, HMRC argued sums ultimately received by individual members as Special Capital were taxable as miscellaneous income under s 687 ITTOIA – Individual members argued payments made pursuant to GSAM's discretion did not derive from a sufficient "source" of income within meaning of s 687 – First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and CA rejected that argument – Individual members appealed to SC –
SC dismissed both appeals – Held profits allocated to GSAM were genuinely allocated to GSAM under LLP deed and were not profit shares of individual members for purposes of s 850 – Individual members had no entitlement to those profits while held by GSAM and any future allocation depended on exercise of GSAM's genuine discretion – Accordingly, s 850 did not apply –
SC further held CAP constituted a sufficient "source" of income for purposes of s 687 – Although payments depended on discretionary decisions by GSAM, the arrangement created a structured and continuing framework from which income was derived – Amounts ultimately received by individual members were therefore taxable as miscellaneous income under s 687 – Appeals dismissed.
Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Canada (Prime Minister) [2026] SCC 22 (12 June 2026)
Successful appeal from New Brunswick CA – Whether constitutional language guarantees applicable in New Brunswick require the Lieutenant Governor to be able to understand and communicate in both English and French when performing the functions of the office –
Appellant challenged 2019 appointment of Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick on basis she was not bilingual – Appellant argued appointing a unilingual English-speaking Lieutenant Governor was inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality of status for English and French in New Brunswick – Application judge held office required personal bilingualism but declined to invalidate appointment – CA allowed appeal, holding constitutional provisions did not limit the Governor in Council’s appointment power –
SC majority allowed appeal – Held s 16(2) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms required Lieutenant Governor to be capable of carrying out the duties of office in both official languages – Provision guarantees equality of status and equal rights and privileges for English and French in institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick –
Court held appointment of a person unable to understand and communicate in both official languages inconsistent with s 16(2) – Declined to quash appointment, holding declaration of constitutional requirement was appropriate remedy and avoided disruption to the functioning of office – Appeal allowed.
Cullen v New South Wales [2026] HCA 19 (17 June 2026)
Appeal from SC to HC over whether police were negligent after a bystander was injured during a protest when officers entered a dense crowd to prevent an apparent flag-burning incident – Parties had agreed if the State was held liable the appellant’s injuries would entitle her to $800,000 in damages –
HC held that police owe a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable physical injury caused by their acts in crowd-control operations – However, although injury to a bystander was foreseeable, the officers’ response was not unreasonable in the urgent and volatile circumstances – No breach of duty was established – Appeal dismissed.
Austral v Northern Territory [2026] HCA 20 (17 June 2026)
Successful appeals (5:2) and partly successful cross-appeals – Final chapter in decade-long litigation arising from events of 21 August 2014 at Don Dale Youth Detention Centre -
Four juvenile detainees exposed to CS gas deployed by prison officers to subdue another detainee – In Binsaris v Northern Territory HC held CS gas deployment constituted unlawful battery and remitted for assessment of damages – Assessing judge awarded general damages ($20,000–$30,000), aggravated damages where applicable ($15,000–$20,000) and exemplary damages of $200,000 to each appellant – Northern Territory CA set aside exemplary damages awards –
HC majority allowed appeals on all 3 grounds – CA erred in relying on trial judge's finding that deployment was "reasonable and necessary" - Finding assumed lawfulness of CS gas use which could not stand following HC decision in Binsaris – CA further erred in treating officers' belief in lawfulness of conduct as effectively determinative against exemplary damages - All circumstances required consideration, including: appellants were minors and bystanders, 2 asthmatic with health unchecked before deployment, CS gas used in confined space from which appellants could not escape, officers displayed callous attitude, post-exposure treatment humiliating, and officers not adequately trained as to lawfulness of CS gas use in youth detention – Systemic failures supported award for moral retribution, deterrence and denunciation –
Cross-appeal partly allowed – $200,000 to each appellant manifestly excessive - Applying totality and parity, total exemplary damages of $200,000 apportioned equally at $50,000 each
Gageler CJ and Steward J dissented and would have dismissed appeals on basis no logical inconsistency between trial judge's finding that deployment was reasonable and necessary and HC conclusion in Binsaris that it was criminally prohibited.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 21 (17 June 2026)
Successful appeal from the Full Federal Court – Whether Block Earner's "Earner" cryptocurrency product was a financial product within the meaning of Ch 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), requiring an Australian financial services licence – Whether the product was a facility through which a person made a financial investment and/or a derivative –
Users deposited Australian dollars with Block Earner and elected to invest through the Earner product, receiving a fixed annual return paid in cryptocurrency – Primary judge held Earner product was a financial product, but Full FC allowed Block Earner's appeal, finding it was neither a financial investment facility nor a derivative –
HC unanimously allowed ASIC's appeal – Held users contributed Australian dollars to Block Earner, which used and intended to use those funds to generate a financial return for users, bringing the product within the definition of a financial investment under s 763B Corporations Act – Rejected argument that users merely lent cryptocurrency or that a financial investment required a direct interest in Block Earner's downstream activities –
HC further held Earner product was a derivative because the amount of Australian dollars users ultimately received depended on the value of the relevant cryptocurrency and applicable exchange rates at withdrawal – Accordingly, the product was a financial product requiring an Australian financial services licence – Matter remitted to Full FC to determine ASIC's appeal concerning penalty.
Chaplin v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2026] HCA 22 (17 June 2026)
Unsuccessful appeal – Construction of income test in Module H of Youth Allowance Rate Calculator in s 1067G Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) –
C received youth allowance while working as casual employee at grocery store – Paid weekly by employer for hours worked in preceding week – Youth allowance instalment periods of 14 days did not align with weekly payslips – C consistently and mistakenly reported net income in payslips for two preceding working weeks – Secretary gave notice in respect of debt of $911.98 considered to have arisen under s 1223(1) – Question arose as to how point 1067G-H23 of Module H, which provided ordinary income "is to be taken into account in the fortnight in which it is first earned, derived or received", applied where decision-maker was satisfied ordinary income had been received but could not be satisfied as to fortnight in which it had been earned –
HC unanimously dismissed appeal – Income test required decision-maker to take ordinary income into account in earliest fortnight of which decision-maker could be satisfied income had been earned, derived or received – Where unable to determine fortnight in which income earned, decision-maker required to take income into account in fortnight in which satisfied it had been received – Known income could not be left out of account altogether.