New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 30 April - 6 May 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Beecham v R [2026] NZSC 41 (30 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – B convicted after jury trial of three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection – Acquitted of one charge of sexual conduct with child under 12 – Appealed unsuccessfully to CA against conviction on third charge – Sought leave to appeal to SC –
B challenged CA decision not to admit the new evidence – Said evidence fresh because could not, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained – Said proposed appeal would require considering what meant by “reasonable diligence” – Also said new evidence cogent as showed third incident could not have happened in way alleged –
SC agreed with Crown proposed appeal did not raise question of general or public importance regarding what meant by reasonable diligence – Rather, aspect would turn on particular facts – No appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.
Chen v Goodmore Investments (New Zealand) Ltd; Chen v Tawa Trade Finance Ltd [2026] NZSC 40 (1 May 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – C sought to refinance property portfolio – Judgment dealt with four applications for leave to appeal related to C’s failure to obtain that finance –
In HC Goodmore and Tawa obtained summary judgment despite C claiming oppressive conduct under Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) –
C and companies appealed to CA, saying HC wrong to find claims under CCCFA and PLA untenable – CA said loan agreements not subject to enhanced CCCFA protections because not consumer credit contracts –
C proposed to argue in SC on proper approach under CCCFA, all agreements were (at least partly) consumer credit contracts, as well as that both Goodmore and Tawa committed CCCFA fraud –
SC said proposed appeals raised essentially factual questions, lacked any realistic prospects of success and therefore raised no matter of general or public importance – Nothing C proposed to argue suggested loans anything but commercial under CCCFA –
No appearance of substantial miscarriage of justice as understood in civil context –
SC said many of C’s authorities irrelevant or did not exist – In either case appearing to be hallucinations of generative artificial intelligence application – Court did not take any action here – Application dismissed.
Murfitt v R [2026] NZSC 44 (1 May 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – M found guilty after trial of sexual violation by rape of UT, and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and attempted rape of AT – Pleaded guilty to theft charge - Found not guilty on two other charges and jury could not agree on one charge – CA dismissed appeal against conviction – Also dismissed recall application –
UT and AT sex workers – Incidents described leading to charges took place in 2019 – Evidence also called on propensity basis from another sex worker, KJ – KJ antagonistic to questioning in cross-examination –
M sought to raise two main matters in SC, both of which said to have led to miscarriage of justice – First of these matters Judge did not give either enhanced sympathy and prejudice direction or strong demeanor direction – M said significant unfair prejudice arising from way KJ gave evidence which undermined M’s right to fair trial – Second proposed appeal ground trial Judge’s directions on proper use of propensity evidence insufficient –
SC said M’s arguments would largely reprise those in CA – Said nothing raised called into question CA assessment directions sufficient – No question of general or public importance arose – No appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.
[N] v R [2026] NZCA 128
[K] v R [2026] NZCA 143
Tarrant v R [2026] NZCA 148
Unsuccessful application to abandon conviction and sentence appeals - T pleaded guilty to murder (x51), attempted murder (x40) and engaging in terrorist act - Sentenced to life imprisonment without parole - T filed notice of appeal against his convictions and sentence 505 working days out of time - Notice of abandonment filed -
T should not be permitted to abandon his applications for extensions of time - Appellant lost absolute right to abandon appeal once hearing commenced as wider public interest considerations became relevant – T’s application and appeal were of significant public interest – Leave to abandon application for an extension of time and any resultant conviction appeal declined - Different considerations applied to sentence appeal and as not addressed at hearing notice of abandonment to extent it related to sentence appeal accepted – T’s application for an extension of time to bring an appeal against his convictions should not be granted - Evidence about T’s mental state not accepted - Inconsistencies in T’s own evidence, and his evidence was at odds with observations of prison authorities and assessments of mental health professionals at time of entering pleas – T’s pleas voluntary, he was not coerced or pressured to plead guilty – T’s proposed conviction appeal devoid of merit - Failed to adequately explain delay - Overall interests of society and administration of justice also favoured declining application to extend time to appeal.
Maritime Union of NZ v Lyttleton Port Company Ltd [2026] NZCA 147
Unsuccessful application by Maritime Union for leave to appeal EC decision finding that LPC complied with its obligations under a collective employment agreement when developing a restructuring proposal – Maritime Union sought leave to appeal on proposed question of law: did EC err in failing to apply principles of interpretation of collective agreements? -
Leave to appeal should not be granted – Section 214(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 states no appeal lies against “a decision on the construction of an individual employment agreement or a collective employment agreement” - While s214(1) did not prevent CA from considering questions of interpretive principle, alleged error must extend beyond construction of a particular agreement to principles and approach in general that was taken - Alleged error not of that type - Proposed appeal fell outside s214(1) - For same reasons, question of law would not have been of general or public importance.
Green & McCahill Holdings Ltd v Williams [2026] NZCA 155
Unsuccessful application by GMH for stay of enforcement of judgment debt pending appeal – GMH entered into limited partnership with W to carry out a large-scale property subdivision - GMH, who owned the land, mortgaged part of it to fund the project - Following delays and cost overruns, GMH refused to release land title to purchasers unless it was paid a specified sum in priority to secured lenders, which HC found to have “effectively tanked the development” - Mortgagee sale undertaken, land sold to entities controlled by W - GMH brought unsuccessful claims against W and entities, alongside the lenders for misleading conduct and breaching mortgagee duties - HC also upheld counterclaim by company associated with W seeking residual debt owing on mortgage - GMH appealed dismissal of its claims and granting of counterclaim - In interim, GMH unsuccessfully sought stay of enforcement of judgment debt pending appeal - GMH then filed an application for stay in CA - After being advised that the application had been set down for a hearing in June, GMH filed an “interim” stay application to protect its position until substantive stay application could be heard -
Applications for stay should not be granted - Considering relevant principles under r12(3) Court of Appeal (Civil Rules) as stated in Keung v GBR Investment Ltd (CA), the Court found overall balance of convenience strongly weighed against stay - Sale of land would not cause permanent harm to GMH and render its appeal nugatory as, irrespective of outcome appeal, GMH would lose land - Stay would cause significant prejudice to respondents - Interest accumulating on loans secured by W and entities to enable purchase at mortgagee sale - Stay would further delay development and potentially result in insolvency of respondents – Stay application declined.
Quebec (Attorney-General) v Lalande [2026] SCC 13 (1 May 2026)
Unsuccessful appeal from Quebec CA – SC confirmed Quebec law that interrupted process of delimiting electoral divisions not justified, infringing right to vote and breaching Charter rights –
Section 3 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed right to vote – Right included not only right to cast vote, but also right to effective representation of voters – To this end, electoral divisions revised periodically by independent body to take into account demographic population changes – Case here concerned constitutional validity of Quebec law that interrupted revision process and whether resulting infringement of right to vote justified –
Commission de la représentation, independent body, responsible for revising Quebec’s electoral map – In 2023, tabled preliminary report proposing to change boundaries of several electoral divisions, notably by reducing number in two regions, including Gaspésie – Following public consultations and National Assembly reactions, legislature enacted, in 2024, “Act to interrupt the electoral division delimitation process”, which put end to process under way and postponed resumption until after Quebec’s next general election –
Voters challenged Act’s validity – Claimed led to violation of right to vote by requiring general election be held based on electoral map that did not respect right to effective representation – Superior Court recognised the right to vote infringed, but said infringement justified under s 1 Charter which allowed government to limit certain rights, but only if it could show limit reasonable and justified in free and democratic society – CA ruled Act unconstitutional and without effect – Quebec Attorney General appealed to SC –
SC majority dismissed appeal – Said existence of infringement of right to vote not challenged before SC – Issue whether infringement justified under s 1 Charter –
CA did not make reviewable error in s 1 analysis – Could accept more precise pressing and substantial objective, that is, preserving electoral division in Gaspésie, and conclude rational connection between this objective and Act – However, Act did not satisfy the minimal impairment requirement –
SC also said National Assembly unanimously passing law not enough to make it valid – Although unanimity might be relevant, did not relieve state from having to show had met Charter requirements – Not case Act remained without effect – Appeal dismissed.
Alford v Canada (Attorney-General) [2026] SCC 14 (1 May 2026)
Unsuccessful appeal from Ontario CA – SC ruled Constitution allowed Parliament to set limits on parliamentary privilege for national security and intelligence committee members –
Parliamentary privilege in Canada defined as sum of privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually – Formed important part of Canada’s constitutional law because set out protections needed for parliamentarians to perform their functions – Constitution gave Parliament authority to define how privileges applied, including setting limits by adopting legislation – However, authority not unlimited –
In 2017, Parliament adopted National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act to create committee of members of Parliament and senators to review Canada’s national security and intelligence activities – Because work involved highly sensitive information, members had to obtain security clearance and agreed not to disclose any information obtained through work on Committee - Section 12 said members could not rely on parliamentary privilege to avoid legal consequences if disclosed any information –
Law professor A challenged s 12 before Ontario Superior Court, saying provision unconstitutional because limited parliamentary privilege, including freedom of speech in Parliament and each House’s authority to control its own proceedings – Said these aspects of parliamentary privilege had constitutional status and could not be limited by ordinary legislation – Judge agreed, ruling s 12 went beyond limits of Parliament’s authority to define parliamentary privilege under Constitution – CA disagreed – Ruled s 12 within Parliament’s authority to define its privileges – A appealed to SC –
SC majority dismissed appeal – Said Constitution gave Parliament power to define privileges, powers and immunities of its Houses and their members – Power included ability to set limits on privileges – When Parliament did so, exercising legislative authority Constitution gave it, not amending Constitution itself – Power, however, not unlimited – To be exercised in manner consistent with parliamentary privilege purpose and with Parliament’s role in Canada’s constitutional order – Parliament could not use power to fundamentally change or undermine its role as legislative body –
Here limits s 12 set out narrow – Applied only to members who chose to sit on this Committee and only to confidential information obtained through role – Did not affect freedom of speech in Parliament more broadly, nor did it prevent Parliament from controlling its own proceedings – Limits valid exercise of Parliament’s constitutional authority – By adopting them, Parliament did not alter the Constitution – Acted within scope of power given to it to define parliamentary privilege – Appeal dismissed.