New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigant, time extension

Erwood v Minchin [2025] NZSC 122 (22 September 2025)

Unsuccessful time extension application – Self-represented E applied for extension of time to file application for leave to appeal against 2024 CA judgment – Judgment dealt with and dismissed applications relating to three proceedings E commenced –

Complicated procedural history – Action E brought against New Zealand Law Society and insurance company regarding losses he suffered because of collapse of law firm Renshaw Edwards in 1992 –

In 2002, E brought proceedings against his lawyers, alleging negligence in how they conducted his litigation – HC appointed lawyer M to be E’s litigation guardian – M arranged for solicitor H to instruct B (now deceased) as counsel –

In October 2003, psychiatrist concluded E not suffering from mental disorder and no longer needed litigation guardian – On 25 November 2003, B and M attended judicial settlement conference – B did not notify Court of psychiatrist’s report – Proceedings settled and consent orders made –

In January 2004, E commenced parallel proceedings to have consent orders recalled and M removed as litigation guardian – On 15 December 2005, HC ruled M’s appointment as litigation guardian continued until Court terminated it – Consequently, M authorised to settle E’s litigation, no merit in E’s application on consent orders –

Various proceedings ensued, culminating in E’s SC application –

SC said had no jurisdiction to hear appeals against leave or special leave decisions – Also applied to recall applications – In any event, leave criteria not met – Also no merit in application – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, recall

Re Rafiq [2025] NZSC 124 (25 September 2025)

Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented R filed five notices of application for leave to appeal against CA judgment – Also applied for fee waivers – Deputy Registrar declined fee waiver application – Judge dismissed review application – R applied to recall decision –

Judge said review application did not require five-judge panel – Recall application did not meet necessary high threshold – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigants, fee waivers

Nottingham v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 125 (26 September 2025)

Unsuccessful review application – Self-represented N applied to review CA judge declining application to review fee waiver decision –

SC Judge not persuaded Deputy Registrar erred in declining fee waiver – Criteria not met – Applicants would continue with proceeding if no fee waiver – Application dismissed.

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal, appeal against sentence, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, causative connection of background to offending - Login required

Nuttal v R [2025] NZCA 483

Supreme Court of Canada

Sentencing principles, historic sexual abuse

R v Sheppard [2025] SCC 29 (26 September 2025)

Successful appeal from Alberta CA – How sentencing decisions reviewed on appeal –

In early 1990s, teacher repeatedly abused grade-seven student – Jury convicted teacher of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching – Sentencing judge identified aggravating factors, found no mitigating factors – Judge imposed concurrent sentences resulting in six years’ imprisonment –

Alberta CA reduced sentence to just under four years – Said sentencing judge had not provided enough reasons – Further, should have relied on cases before 2020 SC case about sentencing principles and ranges for sexual offences against children, but case did not deal with historical offences – Crown appealed to SC –

SC unanimously said CA wrong to reduce sentence – Sentencing judge’s reasons sufficient – No need to spell out every detail if essential facts clear from record and jury’s verdict – Sentencing judge correctly identified aggravating factors and applicable principles –

SC said goals of denunciation and deterrence required balance of sentence to be served in prison – Said contemporary sentencing principles applied to historical offences –

Different from “retrospective punishment”, which Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids – Protection means offenders not to receive harsher sentence than maximum penalty set by law at time crime committed – Appeal allowed.