New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 21 August - 27 August 2025
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Re Akarana-Rewi [2025] NZSC 105 (19 August 2025)
Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented A-R sought recall of SC judge decision not to accept leave application for filing –
Judge said no new matters justifying recall – Application dismissed.
Siemer v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 106 (19 August 2025)
Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented S filed interlocutory application for waiver of filing fee on public interest grounds –
Although intituled as fresh application, appropriately treated as application for recall of Judge’s decision declining to review Deputy Registrar’s decision not to waive same filing fee –
Application raised no new matters – Application dismissed.
Lobb v Ryan [2025] NZCA 405
Successful application by L for extension of time to appeal a HC decision apportioning costs of a court-appointed receiver - Relationship property dispute - Majority of relationship property had been transferred into a family trust - Principal asset of value was the family home – In 2017 R gave notice to trustees requiring resettlement of half the trust assets into new trust – In 2023 HC directed receiver to sell property, with 50 per cent of the proceeds (following the deduction of the costs of sale, receiver’s costs and other payments) to be paid to new Trust – In Almond v Read, SC summarised principles guiding discretion of CA to grant or decline an extension of time to appeal under r29A Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 –
Merits of proposed appeal may be relevant, but any consideration of merits must be relatively superficial as they may be overwhelmed by other factors, such as length of the delay and prejudice to respondent – Delay due to counsel error - Delay short (nine working days) - No real prejudice to R - Appeal not obviously meritless – Extension justified.
G v Governor-General [2025] NZCA 414
[E] v R [2025] NZCA 410
[H] v R [2025] NZCA 412
Wright v Commissioner of Police [2025] NZCA 419
Unsuccessful appeal by W against forfeiture order – HC made assets forfeiture order under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 over property – HC found W had benefitted from significant criminal activity (importation and supply of methamphetamine) - Property was tainted because evidence established W had made numerous unexplained cash deposits into his bank accounts used to meet mortgage payments - HC declined to exclude it from forfeiture on grounds of undue hardship – W argued HC erred by relying on inadmissible evidence in which his bank records had been analysed in circumstances where the records were not themselves adduced -
Evidence admitted by implied consent - Implied agreement sufficient for purposes of s9 Evidence Act 2006 - No objection to admission of evidence at first instance - Bank records would have been admissible under Evidence Act – W had sufficient notice that it formed part of case and had been provided with the records concerned well before the hearing - Evidence had been admitted by agreement.
Malik v Syed [2025] NZCA 417
Unsuccessful appeal by M and W awarding general and aggravated damages against them - W found jointly and severally liable for the lesser sum of $150,000 – M and S former business associates – M, his wife and W found to have published defamatory statements about S – Defamatory imputations were that S had misused funds provided for the construction of mosque -
Factors guiding award of damages correctly identified and applied by HC - Before defamation, S was a prominent and well regarded figure in the Australian Muslim community, and had cultivated a good reputation – The defamation was serious and attacked every aspect of S’s life - It reached a relatively wide audience, with significant adverse effect - S suffered profound distress and embarrassment – M and W’s conduct seriously aggravating as they continued to publish defamatory material despite requests to stop and court orders to desist - Damages award was consistent with authorities, supported by the relevant legal principles – Appeal dismissed.
Successful appeal from full FC – Issue around contravention of s321D(5) Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), civil penalty provision requiring "notifying entity" to ensure certain "particulars" notified in "electoral matter” –
L elected as member of Commonwealth Parliament in 2016 – Candidate in federal election held 18 May 2019 – In six months before election, L posted "electoral matter" on Facebook page "Redland Hospital: Let's fight for fair funding" on three occasions – On each occasion failed to ensure required "particulars", comprising his name and town or city where he lived, included in post – Each post communicated to (seen by) several people: six people for first post, eight people for second post, 14 people for third post –
Electoral Commissioner brought civil penalty proceeding against L in FC – Primary judge said L contravened s321D(5) on three occasions (being each post to Facebook) – Electoral Commissioner appealed –
Full Court said L contravened s321D(5) on at least 28 occasions, being each occasion post communicated (seen by person) – L appealed to HC –
HC majority allowed appeal – Said primary judge's construction of s321D(5) correct – On proper construction, contravention on each occasion L caused post to be published on Facebook, not on each occasion posts viewed – Appeal allowed.
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.