New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigant, fee waiver 

Re McKenzie [2025] NZSC 167 (21 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful review applications – Self-represented McK wished to file three applications for leave to appeal to SC from three CA decisions dismissing appeals from HC decisions striking out proceedings under r 5.35B of High Court Rules 2016 – Each application included fee waiver application – 

Registrar refused to waive fee – McK asked for review – SC Judge agreed with Registrar’s assessment underlying appeals had insufficient prospects of success – Waiving fees would not promote access to justice – Also agree with Registrar proposed appeals did not raise issues of genuine public interest – Applications dismissed. 

Rape, trial judge interventions 

Metuala v R [2025] NZSC 169 (21 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – M sought leave to appeal conviction for rape – Said trial unfair because of trial Judge’s interventions – Said indicated to jury Judge did not believe M’s account and thought defence fanciful – Invited SC to treat case as appropriate opportunity to consider when trial judge might “enter the arena” in criminal trials – 

SC said many trial Judge interventions most inappropriate and CA right to be troubled by them – Not suggested, however, could have affected trial outcome and caused miscarriage of justice – Crown case very strong – CA did not consider interventions made trial unfair – As trial fairness issues always context specific, SC not satisfied matters M raised suggested CA’s conclusion wrong – Application dismissed. 

Evidence, decline to admit new evidence 

Work v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2025] NZSC 171 (21 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – W sought leave to appeal interlocutory CA decision declining to admit new evidence on appeal – Proceeding in which decision made was appeal from HC declining claim under insurance policy with IAG New Zealand Ltd –  

SC said freshness requirement existed to guard against risk appeals will become new trials on different facts – Application dismissed. 

Unit title development, not habitable, unit plan cancellation 

Douglas v Body Corporate 102029 [2025] NZSC 172 (21 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – D sought leave to appeal against CA judgment concerning unit title development built in 1984 – Common ground units essentially not habitable and unrepairable– Options identified rebuilding (D favoured) or cancelling unit plan and making order for sale (BC favoured option) –  

HC interim judgment made order under s 188 Unit Titles Act cancelling unit plan and sale order under s 339 Property Law Act – CA dismissed appeal against interim decision – 

D applied for leave to appeal to SC – SC said no issue of general or public importance – Decision relates to particular facts and no demonstration any alleged errors of law may have changed outcome – Further, nothing raised by applicants suggested miscarriage of justice (in civil sense) – Application dismissed. 

Criminal proceeds recovery 

Soon v R [2025] NZSC 174 (21 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – S sought leave to appeal three years 10 months’ imprisonment sentence for leadership role in large-scale receiving enterprise dealing in stolen property – Sentenced on 21 charges of receiving stolen property valued at roughly $3 million and one of failing to carry out obligations relating to computer search – Twenty receiving charges representative – 

S said given no credit at sentencing for financial consequences of civil restraining orders made, on Commissioner of Police application, over 15 properties in which had interest – Sought leave to argue CA wrong to hold civil forfeiture orders possibly relevant at sentencing only in exceptional circumstances – 

Crown accepted relevance of proceedings under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 at sentencing might be issue of public or general importance, but said S’s appeal had insufficient success prospects to warrant appeal to SC – SC agreed – Application dismissed. 

Rape, indecent assault

Kandaiah v R [2025] NZSC 166 (25 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Jury convicted K of two charges of rape, one representative charge of indecent assault and one charge of attempting to pervert course of justice – Sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment – Appeal against conviction failed – Sought leave to appeal to SC, essentially on same grounds as CA – 

SC said leave criteria not made out – No matter of general or public importance raised – Turned on applying well-established principles to facts – No substantial miscarriage of justice if appeal not heard – Application dismissed. 

Sexual offending, methamphetamine supply 

B (SC 79/2025) v R [2025] NZSC 170 (25 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Jury convicted B on 18 charges of sexual offending against daughter, C, between 2001 and 2011, when C aged between 8 and 17 years – Also found guilty of supplying methamphetamine and cannabis to C – Sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, with seven years MPI – Appeals against conviction and sentence failed – Applied for leave to appeal to SC – 

SC said leave criteria not made out – No matter of general or public importance raised – Turned on applying well-established principles to facts – No substantial miscarriage of justice if appeal not heard– Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, abuse of process

Deliu v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2025] NZSC 177 (25 November 2025) 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Commercial, credit contracts and Consumer Finance Act, oppression, mortgagee sale duties

Chen v Tawa Trade Finance Ltd [2025] NZCA 618

Unsuccessful appeal by C against decision granting summary judgment in favour of Tawa Trade in respect of amount outstanding under two loan agreements - Tawa Trade provided second-tier lending services to property developers – Whether the loan agreements were consumer credit contracts under Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) – Whether Tawa Trade’s conduct was oppressive -  

Loan agreement not a consumer credit contract under CCCFA - Not seriously arguable the credit was used, or intended to be used, wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic, or household purposes - Loans were “for general corporate purposes and not for personal or individual use” - Lender’s refusal to discharge part of its security prior to full repayment of the loan, in circumstances where the borrowers were in default, fell short of meeting the threshold of being conduct that was oppressive – Immediate previous lender had not breached its mortgagee duties - Engaged a reputable real estate agent with significant experience in conducting mortgagee sales, who conducted a comprehensive marketing campaign - Nothing to suggest C unable to adequately protect her interests in negotiations with Tawa Trade - Business loans to a property development company and C’s main business was land banking and purchasing properties with development potential – Appeal dismissed. 

New Zealand High Court

Sentencing, bankruptcy, Companies Act

Coupe v R [2025] NZHC 3586 (24 November 2025) Gardiner J 

Partly successful appeal from DC against sentence – C sentenced to three years 9 months' imprisonment for: (a) managing or controlling business while bankrupt without Official Assignee or court consent (representative); and (b) being bankrupt and concealing property of over $500 (x 2) – 

Notional cumulative sentence eight years two months’ imprisonment for insolvency-related and Companies Act offending disproportionate to gravity of overall offending – Reduced to two years and three months – Meant notional cumulative sentence six years and eight months – 

HC said four-year starting point correct although, on appeal, Court would have imposed two years six months starting point on both concealing charges and applied higher uplift for managing business charge – Uplifts applied for personal aggravating circumstances well-principled and in range – No discount for psychological issues as evidence not fresh, did not represent reduced moral culpability for offending nor would mental health issues require reduced sentence as might be unduly punitive –  

DCJ correctly imposed cumulative sentence on earlier offending as two distinct sets of offending occurring at different times inflicting loss on different groups of people – Latter offending occurred while subject to EM bail on earlier offending – Further 18-month adjustment for totality as notional cumulative sentence disproportionate to gravity of both sets of offending and beyond what necessary to serve sentencing purposes in circumstances – Cumulative sentence amended to six years and eight months – Sentence reduced to two years three months to be served cumulatively with sentence for Companies Act offending – Appeal allowed in part.  

Sentencing, murder of 2 children 

R v Lee [2025] NZHC 3630 (26 November 2025) Venning J 

Sentencing – L sentenced for murder of 2 children – Jury rejected insanity defence – Section 104 Sentencing Act 2002 engaged – Starting point MPI 22 years' imprisonment – Reduced to 17 years to account for mental state at time – Life imprisonment with 17 years MPI – Neither life imprisonment or 17 years MPI manifestly unjust – Order under Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 L to be detained as special patient under Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. 

Sentencing, sexual offences against children 

R v M [2025] NZHC 3631 (26 November 2025) Jagose J 

Sentencing – M pleaded guilty to representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and doing indecent act on child under 12 years of age – Habitual offending against two distantly-related young girls at family gatherings – 

Aggravating factors, serious long-term emotional and psychological harm, comprehensive abuse of position of trust, repetitive nature of offending, degradation and cruelty in isolating girl and directing actions, victim vulnerability, premeditation, offending continuation of propensity for such offending –  

Nine-year starting point – One year uplift for prior offending of similar nature – 10 per cent discount for guilty plea – No discount for contended deprived background – End sentence nine years' imprisonment (broken down: six for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, three for sexual conduct with child under 12 years of age) – 

Five years MPI imposed because M's experience in custody alone seemed unlikely to deter, prospect of release into community perhaps as soon as late next year insufficient to hold M accountable, or properly denounce conduct, or to protect community from M –  

HC satisfied sentence otherwise to be imposed would not provide adequate protection for society from M as unreliable for post-release supervision – Sentence therefore not preferable to preventive detention – Sentenced to preventive detention.  

Supreme Court of Canada

Securities Act, disclosure

Lundin Mining Corp v Markowich [2025] SCC 39 (28 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Ontario CA – Case about legal test investor must meet for permission to sue company for not immediately disclosing events investor considered to be changes – 

Public companies had to inform investors about important information which may affect share value – Ontario’s Securities Act (Act) distinguished between facts, which could wait to be shared as part of regular updates, and changes, which had to be disclosed immediately –  

When company did not disclose change right away, investor could sue – Act required investor to get prior permission from judge – Aimed to ensure investor’s claim had some basis – If investor wanted to include others, had also to ask court to certify action as class proceeding –  

L detected instability in walls around mine – Few days later, rockslide – Mine had to slow down operations, and L lowered production forecast for following year – L did not share information immediately – Revealed month later in scheduled update – Day after disclosure, L’s share price fell by 16 per cent – 

Investor who bought shares after instability appeared but before disclosure started proposed class action – Said L failed to make timely disclosure of change – Asked court for permission to begin proceeding and sought certification of class proceeding – 

Judge dismissed motion and refused to give permission for class proceeding – Found no reasonable possibility investor could show either instability or rockslide amounted to change that required immediate disclosure – CA disagreed – Gave permission to begin action and sent certification issues back to Superior Court of Justice – L appealed to SC –

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said motion judge interpreted Act too narrowly – Act did not define words like “change”, “business”, “operations” or “capital” – Ensured law applies to many different industries – For leave investor only needed to show Act likely violated with evidence in support – Leave test meant to screen out weak cases, not to decide who would win at trial – 

SC said instability and rockslide affected L’s operations and influenced planning and production forecast – Supported investor’s claim change had occurred – Investor met leave test and should have been given permission to proceed with claim – Appeal dismissed.