New Zealand Supreme Court

Weathertightness, compensation eligibility 

Body Corporate 355492 v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2025] NZSC 180 (1 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Body Corporate (BC) owned Oaks Shores, multi-unit complex in Queenstown – Complex suffered leaks requiring weathertightness repairs – BC brought multi-unit complex claim seeking central government financial assistance under Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (Act) –  

BC contended, contrary to Courts below findings, Ministry determined BC claim eligible and included “Block 4” units – When Ministry’s delegate communicated decision, it became final – BC said claims advisor’s further advice about potential financial assistance unsolicited and inconsistent with Ministry’s eligibility decision – 

SC not persuaded Courts below erred interpreting decision as communicated – At no point did decision suggest Block 4 units eligible – Rather, confirmed although entire complex constituted eligible claim (in accordance with Act’s purpose to consolidate dwellinghouse claims for speedy resolution), Block 4 units did not appear to be dwellinghouses so provisionally ineligible – 

SC said issues BC said of general or public importance did not arise for decision here – No risk of substantial miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, Registrar review  

Re Hook [2025] NZSC 184 (2 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful review application – Self-represented H sought review of Registrar’s decision refusing to accept proposed appeal for filing on ground Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it – 

SC Judge said s 68(b) Senior Courts Act 2016 barred application – No exceptions – SC had no jurisdiction to entertain proposed appeal – Application dismissed. 

Bill of Rights, right to fair trial

Parore v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 185 (2 December 2025) 

Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to allow appeal – Among other things, CA granted Declaration Commissioner of Inland Revenue breached P’s right to silence, breaching right to fair trial under s 25(a) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

Self-represented litigant, second recall

Re Slavich [2025] NZSC 176 (5 December 2025) 

Self-represented litigant, abuse of process 

Re McKenzie [2025] NZSC 186 (5 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented McK applied for review of Deputy Registrar refusal to waive filing fee – Deputy Registrar satisfied McK unable to pay filing fee, but proposed appeal had no prospects of success and abuse of process – 

SC Judge agreed – Application dismissed. 

Appeal against conviction, sexual offending  

Mahoney v R [2025] NZSC 187 (5 December 2025) 

Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal against conviction –  

Intended appeal be heard together with appeal in T (SC 51/2025) v R, in which leave already granted – Application granted. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Commercial, meaning of consumer credit contract, oppression, mortgagee sale duties 

Chen v Goodmore Investments (New Zealand) Ltd [2025] NZCA 617

Unsuccessful appeal by C against HC decision granting summary judgment in favour Goodmore - Proceeding originated from enforcement action taken by Goodmore against C and her companies that defaulted on a short-term - Goodmore had realised its security -

Loan agreement not a consumer credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) - Credit not used, or intended to be used, wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic, or household purposes, as required by CCCFA - Goodmore’s conduct not oppressive - Goodmore had not breached its duty as mortgagee exercising power of sale under s176 Property Law Act 2007 - Goodmore engaged a reputable real estate agent with significant experience in conducting mortgagee sales, who conducted a comprehensive marketing campaign - Marketing campaign comprehensive.

Criminal, appeal against conviction and sentence, sexual offending, Judge’s directions on acquittal propensity – Login required 

[W] v R [2025] NZCA 627

Criminal, appeal against conviction, juror conduct, jurors looking up appellant's previous convictions and complainant’s social media – Login required 

[R] v R [2025] NZCA 632 

Criminal, appeal against conviction and sentence, trial counsel competence – Login required 

[M] v R [2025] NZCA 645 

New Zealand High Court

Judicial review, interim orders  

Kapa-Kingi v Tamihere [2025] NZHC 3776 (5 December 2025) Radich J  

Successful interim orders application – Application came as Te Pāti Māori (party) prepared for annual hui (AGM) scheduled for Sunday, 7 December 2025 – Two days from hearing – 

HC said serious questions to be tried on manner K-K expelled from party – K-K had position necessary to preserve – Need to protect position pending substantive decision – Issues outweighed difficulties respondents saw arising if order made requiring K-K’s return – 

Interim order, pending proceeding substantive hearing, requiring respondents to reinstate K-K as member of Te Pāti Māori – No other orders made. 

High Court of Australia

Standard of proof, “unrealistic possibility”

Farshchi v R [2025] HCA 46 (3 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Victoria CA – Issue whether "reasonable doubt is not ... an unrealistic possibility" did not alter, impair, detract from or diminish criminal standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt” –  

Jury in County Court of Victoria convicted F of two forced labour offences, contrary to ss 270.6A(1) and (2) of Criminal Code (Cth) – In charge to jury, Judge said phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt", applied ss 63 and 64 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) – Said phrase included "[a] reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt or an unrealistic possibility" – F appealed to HC – 

HC unanimously ruled explanation in s 64(1)(e) did not alter, impair, detract from or diminish criminal standard of proof – Majority ruled s 64(1)(e) not inconsistent with criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in s 13.2(1) Criminal Code – Appeal dismissed. 

Judicial review, procedural fairness 

Badari v Minister for Territory Families and Urban Housing [2025] HCA 47 (3 December 2025) 

Successful appeal from Northern Territory CA – Appeal heard with related application for special leave to appeal, in which HC delivered judgment separately – 

Appeal concerned three determinations of Minister for Territory Families and Urban Housing and Minister for Housing and Homelands, under s 23 Housing Act 1982 (NT) –  

Determinations prescribed rent payable for over 5,000 dwellings in various remote communities and took effect despite anything to contrary contained in existing tenancy agreements entered into in respect of dwellings –  

Ministers made determinations without giving notice to any tenant or inviting any tenant to make submissions regarding proposed rent change – 

Parties to tenancy agreements entered into in respect of dwellings affected applied to Northern Territory Supreme Court for judicial review on two grounds: first, parties not afforded procedural fairness; and second, each determination legally unreasonable – Primary judge dismissed application for judicial review – CA dismissed appeal – Parties appealed to HC – 

HC unanimously said exercising power to make determinations under s 23 Housing Act conditioned by obligation to observe procedural fairness – HC said parties denied procedural fairness, and denial material – Accordingly, jurisdictional error infected each determination – Given that conclusion, unnecessary to address whether determinations legally unreasonable – Appeals allowed. 

Evidence, kidnapping, rape, “independent support” 

R v Tsalkos [2025] HCA 49 (3 December 2025) 

Successful appeal from Victoria CA – Following trial by jury, T guilty of, amongst other things, two charges of kidnapping and two charges of rape with aggravating circumstances of two female complainants, AB and JJ, for conduct occurring in 1987 –

After alleged offending, AB and JJ taken to hospital – At trial, AB's mother gave evidence walked into hospital cubicle and saw AB on bed "very very distressed" –  

CA majority allowed T’s appeal, finding substantial miscarriage of justice because trial judge's directions supposedly invited jury to use evidence AB distressed at time she complained about alleged offences to mother as "independent support" for AB's account in circumstances where not open to jury to find causal link between distress and events complained of – Crown appealed to HC – 

HC unanimously ruled CA reasoning not consistent with previous HC case – Said AB's mother's evidence capable of supporting occurrence of alleged offending – Appeal allowed. 

Supreme Court of Canada

New trial ordered, error of law 

R v Oellett [2025] SCC 40 (3 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Quebec CA – Between 2017 and 2020, O and complainant had sexual relations to which complainant says she did not consent – Events occurred in context of difficult intimate relations with great deal of tension – At trial, judge heard testimony from complainant and O, who both gave different versions of facts – Judge also heard recordings of discussions between two parties – 

 Judge acquitted O – In oral reasons, judge said accepted O’s version – Said complainant consented to sexual relations and Crown’s evidence did not establish lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt – 

Quebec CA majority allowed Crown’s appeal and ordered new trial – Said judge’s reasons too brief to adequately explain why he believed O’s testimony more than complainant’s testimony -

Dissenting judge would have dismissed Crown’s appeal – Said, even though trial judge’s reasons brief, explained his decision – Said no error of law – O appealed to SC – 

SC majority dismissed appeal for substantially same reasons as CA – New trial ordered.