New Zealand Supreme Court

Declarations of inconsistency

Attorney-General v Chisnall [2025] NZSC 126

Unsuccessful appeal, successful cross-appeal – On 19 December 2024, SC ruled aspects of extended supervision order (ESO) and public protection order (PPO) regimes inconsistent with rights and freedoms affirmed in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) – Said would issue declarations of inconsistency with s 26(2) NZBORA regarding PPO regime and detention-authorising aspects of ESO regime – SC sought submissions from parties on exact wording of these declarations – This judgment addresses declaration wording –

SC made following declarations of inconsistency:

“Public protection orders made under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 are a second penalty for offences for which offenders have already been punished. They therefore limit the right to be free from second penalty protected by s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This limitation is not justified under s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. To the extent that s 3 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act authorises the retrospective application of public protection orders, that limitation cannot be justified. Therefore, provisions in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act that authorise the making of public protection orders are inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

“To the extent that ss 15, 107FA, 107IA, 107IAC and 107K of the Parole Act 2002 authorise the imposition of special conditions requiring detention as an aspect of an extended supervision order, they are a second penalty for offences for which offenders have already been punished. They therefore limit the right to be free from second penalty protected by s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This limitation is not justified under s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. To the extent that s 107C(2) of the Parole Act authorises the retrospective application of detention-authorising special conditions as an aspect of an extended supervision order, that limitation cannot be justified. Therefore, to the extent that ss 15, 107FA, 107IA, 107IAC and 107K of the Parole Act authorise the imposition of special conditions requiring detention as an aspect of an extended supervision order, they are inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

Appellants ordered to pay respondent $70,000 costs plus disbursements.

Self-represented litigant, adjournment

Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 130

Unsuccessful adjournment application – On 19 September 2025 self-represented W applied for 90-day adjournment of two-day fixture commencing on 5 November 2025 KIL appeal – Also sought 90-day timetabling adjustment – To support application W referred to burden of responding to multiple extant proceedings involving KIL in Australia and New Zealand – Said proceedings “overwhelming” – Referred to GP letter describing W’s health problems – GP said stress from multiple legal battles in Australia, United States and New Zealand affecting W’s physical and mental health –

GP’s letter 18 months old, W still engaged in multiple legal proceedings in three jurisdictions, no reason to believe W’s chronic health problems have improved since March last year – Even so, SC not satisfied adjournment warranted – Although W self-represented, issue in appeal narrow legal one – Further, Court appointed senior counsel, K, to ensure Court fully appraised of arguments as may properly be made – Two factors meant burden on W much reduced – Application dismissed.

Employment Relations Authority jurisdiction

Hairland Holdings Ltd v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2025] NZSC 129

Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to allow appeal on basis Employment Relations Authority does not have jurisdiction to hear application, brought by purported employer against Chief Executive, Labour Inspector and/or its workers, for bare declaration that its workers not employees under section 6(1) Employment Relations Act 2000.

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal, conviction and sentence appeal, unreasonable verdicts, propensity directions

R v Jago [2025] NZCA 507

Unsuccessful appeal by J against his conviction for historical sexual offending against two complainants and sentence of two years six months – Starting point of two years 10 months adopted – Aggravating features: breach of trust, complainants vulnerability because of age, intoxication and psychological harm – Three month discount for previous good character – One month discount for emotional harm payments of $1,500 each –

Verdicts not unreasonable – Deficiencies in criticised evidence clearly before jury, accompanied by comprehensive judicial directions – Open to jury to conclude they were outweighed by other evidence – Relevant ages and date range of the charges were similarly made clear - Judge's directions on delay adequate – Judge's directions on propensity adequate – They were comprehensive, tailored to the evidence and case, and met the requirements of Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52, [2011] 3 NZLR 145 – While stern, starting point was open to Judge in circumstances and accorded with case law – Previous good character discount was generous – Open for Judge to consider imprisonment was least restrictive sentence appropriate – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed. 

Criminal, conviction appeal, importing methamphetamine, evidence of agreement to receive 

Tabuwere v R [2025] NZCA 505

Unsuccessful appeal by T against conviction for importing methamphetamine – He was sentenced to 12 months home detention and 100 hours community work which had been served – Crown case was that T permitted his home address to be used to receive a methamphetamine package shipment (for which he would receive compensation) – Whether available for a properly directed jury to conclude T agreed or “allowed” his address to be used –

No requirement for prosecutor to expressly put to T that he knew the package was being imported – A party only has to cross-examine a witness on significant matters in issue if those matters contradict evidence of the witness and witness could be expected to give further evidence if given the opportunity – Inference could be drawn that package was being imported with T’s assistance, who would be rewarded for his involvement – Sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Y had agreed to receive package – Appeal dismissed.

Criminal, appeal against sentence, importation of cocaine, discounts for personal factors

Alves v R [2025] NZCA 508

Unsuccessful appeal by A against sentence of six and a half years imprisonment for importation of cocaine –  Brazilian national – Arrived on flight from Santiago, Chile – Suitcases contained 1.952 kg of cocaine – A was to deliver bags to  person he did not know and expected to be paid $10,000 on delivery – He claimed not to know suitcases contained drugs – Starting point of 10 years' imprisonment adopted – Role treated between lesser and significant – 25 per cent discount for guilty plea – Discounts totalling 10 per cent for: imprisonment in foreign prison; history of drug and alcohol abuse; insight into harm drugs do and rehabilitation efforts –

Financial motivation in offending – A’s efforts towards rehabilitation were at an early stage – Expression of remorse would not usually, in itself, justify discrete discount, particularly where a discrete discount has been given to recognise insight into the offending – End sentence within range – Appeal dismissed.

Criminal, appeal against conviction, money laundering, definition of “concealment”, couriers

Mateparae v R [2025] NZCA 512

Unsuccessful appeals against convictions for money laundering – Police operation centred on importation and distribution of methamphetamine – Focus of operation was activities of car yard – Appellants found driving a vehicle containing large amount of cash – Crown case was that, knowing cash was proceeds of drug sales, appellants “dealt” with it when transporting it from one city to another and off-loading it to supplier –

For money laundering charge, concealment and dealing must be related – However, in enabling concealment, the relationship was that the dealing enables concealment, not that it causes concealment – Intent to enable any person to conceal property was not required – Couriers of cash would engage in a money laundering transaction if they concealed the  cash themselves or enable its concealment by any other person – Participating as intermediary inserted to separate or distance dealer from  drug transaction may itself amount to enabling concealment Mens rea required – Sufficient evidence appellants enabled concealment – Open to jury to infer sums concealed by drug dealers once appellants transported it to car yard – Offending occurred in context of sophisticated drug dealing syndicate – Appeals dismissed.

Criminal, appeals against conviction and sentence, prosecutor’s use of the counterintuitive evidence – Login required

G v R [2025] NZCA 520

Commercial,  continuation of  interim injunction, dispute over artworks, security for costs, balance of convenience – Login Required

Agam v Moon [2025] NZCA 510

New Zealand High Court

Negligent misstatement, Fair Trading Act

Green & Mccahill Holdings Ltd v Williams [2025] NZHC 2581

Unsuccessful negligent misstatement and other claims – Related to development of 900-hectare block of coastal land, north of Auckland – Initial landowner Green & Mccahill Holdings Ltd (GMHL) – Taiwanese family company, with senior director L, purchased GMHL along with land –

Qualified lawyer and experienced property developer, W, showed interest in acquiring land to develop –

By early 2019, 150-lot subdivision development mostly complete and many lots sold – First stage of at least four – Insufficient revenue generated to pay off loans – GMHL would not be paid agreed payment for first section of its land – Relationship between W and L irretrievably broke down –

Development “tanked” – Mortgagee sale advertised – No satisfactory offer from public – Mortgagee sold to W who had funds from overseas – GMHL smelt rat and suspected shady dealings by mortgagee –

GMHL brought four causes of action – First and second alleged negligent misstatement and misleading conduct under Fair-Trading Act 1986 (FTA) respectively against W – Third alleged mortgagee breached mortgagee sale duties when selling mortgaged properties – Consequential relief sought against W’s new companies –

All four cause of action unsuccessful – All alleged misstatements properly characterised as opinions/predictions or forecasts as to future events – Similar conclusion on FTA claim – Under third cause of action, mortgagee complied with duty under section 176 Property Law Act 2007 to take reasonable care to obtain best price reasonably attainable through mortgagee sale – Also complied with equitable duties including requirement to act for proper purpose.

Judicial review, Lake Alice, international obligations

Richards v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 2833

Unsuccessful judicial review application – R applied for judicial review and declaratory judgment regarding Cabinet decisions establishing redress scheme for survivors of torture at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital –

Application brought on grounds redress scheme did not comply with section 9 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, nor New Zealand's obligations under international law – R said redress scheme should be set aside and declarations made as to non-compliance –

HC said international instruments advanced not binding legal frameworks against which Cabinet decisions could be measured – Application dismissed.