New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigants, time extension 

Vortac NZ Ltd v R [2026] NZSC 59 (21 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful time extension application – Self-represented V, director N, and self-represented manager O found guilty after jury trial of charges under Resource Management Act 1991 – 

Some four years later, all sought extension of time to appeal against convictions – 

SC said lengthy delay in filing leave applications unexplained – Against background, strength of proposed appeal not such as to provide compelling reason to extend time to appeal – In circumstances, not in interests of justice to grant time extension – Application dismissed.

Trusts, mediation, arbitration 

Gatfield v Hinton [2026] NZSC 60 (22 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Application arose in context of family trust dispute – In March 2024, trustee applied for orders that proceedings applicants brought regarding trust be referred to mediation and, if mediation unsuccessful (as had been), matter be determined by arbitration - HC associate judge made orders trustee sought under s 145 Trusts Act 2019 – CA upheld orders on appeal – Applicants sought leave to appeal to SC from CA decision and stay of the judgments below pending appeal – 

Applicants argued s 145 did not confer power to make coercive arbitration orders in trust proceeding – Said if construed in light of various constitutional rights, common law principles, and in context of Trusts Act and Arbitration Act 1996, arbitration agreement prerequisite to exercising s 145 power – Said nothing in the legislative history to support interpretation taken in courts below – Also wished to argue reasons given for exercising power here, if there was power – 

SC said scope of s 145 and its application might raise questions of general or public importance – However, this case had insufficient prospects of success – Nothing applicants raised suggested CA erred in its assessment, which followed analysing statutory scheme – In circumstances, no appearance of miscarriage of justice as term used in civil context – Application dismissed. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Costs, legal aid, exceptional circumstances

Conroy v Taylor [2026] NZCA 188 (20 May 2026)

Successful appeal by C against costs order - Legally aided litigant – Costs awarded on grounds exceptional circumstances in s 45(2) Legal Services Act 2011 met - Parties purchased property through respective trusts – Order for sale and division of proceeds under Property Law Act 2007 – Court held C defended proceeding alone and therefore acted unreasonably by pursuing her own personal interests as a trustee -

Respondents had not sought order against C personally and had not sought costs against C personally due to legal aid – That meant exceptional circumstances not in issue - Threshold of exceptional circumstances not met - Unreasonableness alone would not ordinarily meet exceptional circumstances threshold - Unreasonableness found must be considered in context - Although unsuccessful in her opposition to the application, no suggestion opposition was wholly devoid of merit or utterly hopeless – C had not caused respondents unnecessary cost, failed to comply with procedural rules or Court orders or engaged in misleading or deceitful conduct – Sickness beneficiary – No information about financial means provided – Appeal allowed – Costs order set aside.

Supreme Court of Canada

Murder, criminal gang 

R v Whitehawk [2026] SCC 17 (21 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Saskatchewan CA – W charged with first degree murder on B’s death – Crown alleged B attacked and killed by several people connected to criminal gang – At trial, Crown’s case relied mainly on evidence from three witnesses associated with gang – 

Judge identified significant credibility and reliability concerns with all three witnesses – Found inconsistencies between trial testimony, police statements, and preliminary hearing evidence – Also said some lied under oath, changed accounts over time, or had reasons to protect one another –  

Despite concerns, judge concluded W participated in attack on B and contributed significantly to death – However, judge not satisfied Crown proved all elements required for first degree murder, including killing committed in association with criminal organisation – W acquitted of first degree murder but convicted of second degree murder – W appealed second degree murder conviction and Crown appealed first degree murder acquittal –  

Saskatchewan CA majority dismissed both conviction and acquittal appeals – Said judge’s reasons sufficient and she committed no error of law – W appealed to SC –  

SC unanimously dismissed appeal for substantially same reasons as CA. 

Evidence, hearsay

R v Saddleback [2026] SCC 18 (22 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Alberta CA – Concerned whether trial judge improperly relied on hearsay evidence in convicting accused person of second degree murder –  

In July 2020, S and group of friends socialising outside trailer – Most of group left to attend nearby birthday party – S and victim, D, stayed behind – Shortly after, D found beaten to death – D’s girlfriend testified had spoken to D on phone shortly before death and he said he “was being ditched” by those friends – 

At trial, judge sitting alone convicted S of second degree murder – In reasons, judge relied on phone call between D and girlfriend to conclude S only person left and therefore able to commit crime – 

Alberta CA majority allowed appeal and ordered new trial – Said trial judge improperly relied on phone call content for truth of what said, specifically people had left – CA said amounted to error in law because statement hearsay and should not have been used to support finding S alone with D – Said S’s conviction could not stand and new trial required – Crown appealed to SC – 

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said trial judge’s reasons relied on hearsay by using victim’s out of court statement for truth of its contents - Specifically, D’s statement used to establish other group members left trailer while victim remained there with accused – 

SC said D’s statement unambiguously hearsay and no basis in record to rely on statement for any purpose other than its truth – New trial required – Appeal dismissed.