New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 5 March - 11 March 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Wright v R [2026] NZSC 10 (5 March 2026)
Partly successful leave application – W charged with sexual offending against four complainants at or under 16 – Defence was that complainants had fabricated allegations –
Summing up, trial Judge gave directions under s 126A Evidence Act 2006 on misconceptions about sexual offending – Two relevant to Mr Wright’s proposed appeal – First, Judge gave direction, drawn from Criminal Jury Trials Bench Book, that “stress and trauma” could alter recollection and misconception to assume if complainants did not have “clear and detailed account[s]”, not telling truth – Secondly, Judge directed jury on how to use memory direction, noting “says nothing about Mr Wright’s guilt or innocence” and aimed for jury not to be influenced by misconceptions –
Jury found W guilty of 15 charges concerning three complainants, and not guilty of six other charges (two involving fourth complainant) – W sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment –
CA dismissed W’s appeal – W applied to SC for leave to appeal on three grounds – SC saw no appearance of miscarriage of justice or matters of general or public importance regarding grounds one and three – Regarding ground 2, SC said outcomes in two other cases might affect outcome here as similar issues raised – Applications on grounds one and three dismissed – Decision on ground two reserved.
Te Hivaka v R [2026] NZSC 11 (5 March 2026)
Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal against conviction.
Thompson v R [2026] NZSC 12 (5 March 2026)
Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal – In submissions counsel should address correct approach to manifest injustice under s 104(1A)(h) Sentencing Act 2002 (vulnerability of deceased) and application here.
Wang v Body Corporate 406198 [2026] NZSC 14 (6 March 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – W sought leave to appeal CA decision refusing time extension to appeal HC costs award –
SC said unusually, proposed appeal from HC costs judgment in favour of BC and W - Application listed particulars making clear proposed appeal about BC handling of dispute, not costs outcome –
Application declined for two reasons – First, serious and extensive allegations against BC not within proper scope of appeal from HC costs judgment – Second, no attempt to explain 183-day delay in appeal to CA – SC satisfied not necessary in interests of justice to determine proposed appeal – Application dismissed.
Yorston v Attorney-General [2026] NZCA 15
Unsuccessful appeal by Y against refusal of judicial review application to correct errors in his convictions history report (CHR) – Ministry of Justice conceded there were errors in software which compiled CHRs as it conflated conviction date with sentence date - HC declined application because errors in Y’s CHR had been identified and fixed – HC also held it did not have jurisdiction to consider Y’s claim because it was an exercise of a “wholly administrative” and “essentially mechanical” power, which was not reviewable – Y claimed his CHR had been “maliciously falsified” and used in unrelated proceedings he was involved in –
Production of CHRs was not an administrative act only and was justiciable – CHRs were generated by computer systems, which had been adopted, managed and operated under the administration of the Ministry - Case management system from which data was obtained for both CHRs and criminal and traffic history reports were used daily by courts and judges particularly for sentencing - Production of CHRs was result of exercise of executive powers of Government and must be amenable to review – Ministry exercised its statutory power under Privacy Act 2020 to access case management system to produce CHRs - Ministry overseeing operation had ultimate responsibility for its accuracy and the exercise of its statutory power must be subject to review – As relief sought had been achieved, review proceedings moot – Appeal dismissed.
[J] v R [2026] NZCA 47
Salt v R [2026] NZCA 62
Successful appeal by S against sentence of life imprisonment with MPI of 12 years for murder – Altercation in pub - S kicked deceased in face and stomped on his head four times until he was unconscious – S removed deceased’s wallet and gave to associates - Aggravating factors included use of significant violence including attacks to the head until deceased was unconscious, vulnerability as S attacked deceased from behind and while he was on the ground, degree of callousness as deceased left unconscious for over an hour before ambulance called, devastating impact on deceased’s family and their wider community - Starting point for the MPI of 12 and a half years – Six months deduction for background and personal circumstances -
Fact attack was not in self-defence and was unreasonable did not mean it was outside the ordinary range of murder offending - MPI of 12 years manifestly excessive when compared with similar cases and considering aggravating factors of offending - Judge’s approach to discounts for personal mitigating factors was correct – S had not left scene which involved lower level of callousness - Cases involving manual attacks that had adopted an MPI starting point around 12 and a half years frequently involved multiple attackers, a prolonged or sustained assault – MPI of eleven years should have been imposed – Appeal allowed.
Albnayan v R [2026] NZCA 56
Appeal by A against sentence of four years and four months' imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with a weapon – Aggravating factors included level of violence and sustained attacks to head, use of weapons, seriousness of injuries inflicted, three attackers, vulnerability of victim – Starting point of seven and a half years' imprisonment – Discounts of 25 per cent for A’s PTSD, 10 per cent to reflect imprisonment may have a disproportionate impact due to A’s mental health, 10 per cent for impact on A’s wife and children -
Aggravating factors meant the grievous bodily harm offending readily fell within band 2 of R v Taueki - Starting point within range – Attack which occurred while victim disarmed and on ground was not less culpable due to provocation or a continuing element of excessive self-defence - Gratuitous violence enacted in retribution - Excessive self-defence and/or provocation was recognised through a generous deduction, that A’s history and PTSD causally contributed to his offending and mitigated his culpability – Appeal dismissed.
MacKay v Blair [2026] NZCA 58
Successful appeal by M against decision payment made by M to her daughter B was an unconditional gift to assist purchase of property -
M had not intended the advance to be outright gift - Expectation that in exchange for financial support M would be entitled to live in the property for the rest of her life and be cared for by her daughter – No evidence supporting finding M had a high level of capacity to understand all key aspects of transaction - Equity presumed that a person who paid for property intended to retain beneficial ownership of that property - Implications of M’s cognitive limitations not fully appreciated by Judge or those dealing with her at time transaction entered into – Had Judge fully appreciated apparent limitations to M’s cognitive abilities he was unlikely to have concluded that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted – Appeal allowed – Case remitted back to HC.
Commissioner of Police v Unknown [2026] NZHC 446 (4 March 2026) Osborne J
Orders under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 where homeowners found $232,400 cash concealed in ceiling of recently purchased residence – Handed money to Police – Evidence established cash probably “tainted” in sense derived from drug dealing – Police sought forfeiture order over all cash – Homeowners sought order entitling them to all cash – Parties reached agreement for Court approval under Act – HC approved settlement whereby cash vested in Crown but Crown to pay homeowners $40,000.
Bhalla v District Court [2026] NZHC 472 (5 March 2026) Anderson J
Unsuccessful judicial review, declarations application – Application for judicial review or declarations regarding DC decision voiding 2025 election for Papatoetoe Subdivision, Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board –
Application dismissed – Section 103 Local Electoral Act 2001 precluded removal of determination to HC by "any procedure" – Precluded HC from reviewing matters connected to DC judge factual inquiry – Application related to judge's factual inferences and inquiry barred.
Other judicial review grounds asserting errors in standard of proof adopted, misconstruction of jurisdiction and aspects of allegations of breach of natural justice associated with notice of petition and grounds not barred – However, errors not established -
DC did not impugn B’s conduct – No allegation involved in misuse of voting papers - Declarations not required and would not be appropriate – Applications dismissed.
Yorston v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 38
Unsuccessful judicial review application by Y to correct errors in his convictions history report produced by the Ministry of Justice – During the proceeding, the Ministry identified and corrected the errors which were caused by software conflating conviction and sentence dates - Software issue was being investigated - Y believed his CHR had been deliberately falsified in order to mislead the Court in an unrelated proceeding -
Ministry’s software used the court record which it accessed lawfully in order to populate the CHR - Populating a CHR through Ministry software was not a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 - Nor was it the exercise of public power in a more general sense at common law - It was a decision that was wholly administrative in nature – It was not readily susceptible to the sort of error that may justify judicial review - Accordingly, there was no decision that has been made, and no exercise of public power, that was amenable to review – Application declined.
Quebec (Attorney-General) v Kanyinda [2026] SCC 7 (6 March 2026)
Partly successful appeal from Quebec CA – Case concerned access to subsidised childcare for refugee claimants in Quebec – Government programmes or benefits, to comply with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, had not to discriminate against particular groups – Here SC asked to decide whether excluding refugee claimants from subsidised childcare discriminatory, and if so, whether government could justify exclusion –
K entered Quebec with three young children and claimed refugee protection – While waiting for decision on refugee claim, obtained work permit – Tried to get subsidised childcare so could work –Denied because Quebec’s Reduced Contribution Regulation limited subsidized childcare to certain categories of residents that did not include refugee claimants –
K applied for judicial review of Regulation – Said excluding refugee claimants discriminatory on three grounds: sex, citizenship, and new analogous ground of immigration status – Sex and citizenship long recognised as possible discrimination grounds, immigration status has not - Judge ruled Regulation did not create sex-based distinction between women and men refugee claimants – CA allowed K’s appeal, saying Regulation did create distinction based on sex, and discriminatory because perpetuated women’s historical disadvantage and underrepresentation in workforce – Quebec Attorney General of Quebec appealed to SC –
SC majority partly allowed appeal – Said Regulation discriminated based on effects – Although applied to all refugee claimants in same way, affected women refugee claimants more strongly – Women more likely to have primary childcare responsibilities and access to affordable childcare closely tied to ability to work – Consequently, exclusion reinforced and worsened disadvantage women refugee claimants experienced –
Said discrimination not justified under s 1 Charter – Section 1 allowed governments to limit Charter rights if limits could be reasonably justified – While Quebec’s goal of limiting subsidised childcare to people with sufficient connection to province was important, SC found no real link between goal and excluding refugee claimants – Result, parents residing in Quebec who were refugee claimants should be eligible for subsidised childcare – While CA limited the access to work permit holders, SC said requirement not necessary – Appeal partly successful.
Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L.; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd [2026] UKSC 9 (4 March 2026)
Unsuccessful appeals from CA – Concerned whether Kingdom of Spain and Republic of Zimbabwe, each subject of arbitration awards rendered under 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), can rely on sovereign immunity to set aside registration of awards in UK HC under Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 (1966 Act) –
Section 1 State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) gave foreign states immunity from United Kingdom Court jurisdiction, except as provided for in ss 2 to 11 SIA 1978 – Exceptions relevant in appeals ss 2 and 9 – Section 2(2) provided state not immune regarding proceedings where submitted to UK court jurisdiction by prior written agreement – Section 17 SIA 1978 said agreement included international treaties – Section 9(1) said state not immune, had agreed in writing to submit dispute to arbitration, as respects proceedings which related to arbitration –
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and Energia Termosolar BV (together Infrastructure) companies domiciled in Luxembourg and Netherlands respectively - Infrastructure claimed changes Spain made to regulatory regime governing energy market breached Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) in respect of their investments in renewable energy facilities in Spain – Arbitration proceedings commenced in 2013 – By award dated 15 June 2018, Spain ordered to pay €112 million in compensation (later reduced by €11 million) –
Separately, case against Zimbabwe arose from investments in land by Border Timbers Ltd, Hangani Development Co (Private) Ltd, which Zimbabwe later expropriated without compensation – Companies initiated arbitral proceedings against Zimbabwe under bilateral investment treaty with Switzerland, which provided for submission of disputes to arbitration under ICSID Convention – Arbitration proceedings commenced, and in award dated 28 July 2015, arbitral tribunal ordered Zimbabwe to pay US$124m together with interest, and further US$1m in moral damages and costs –
Companies involved in arbitrations with Spain and Zimbabwe successfully applied to High Court of England and Wales to register relevant award under 1966 Act as if were final HC judgments – States in both cases applied to set aside registration orders on basis were immune from adjudicative jurisdiction of English courts under s 1(1) SIA 1978 –
Regarding Spain, on 24 May 2023 HC Judge ruled, by virtue of consenting to article 54(1) ICSID Convention and article 26 ECT, Spain submitted to jurisdiction of English courts by prior written agreement under s 2(2) SIA 1978 – Alternatively, Spain precluded from contesting existence of arbitration agreement between itself and companies, such that s 9(1) SIA 1978 automatically satisfied –
Regarding Zimbabwe, on 19 January 2024 another Judge ruled article 54(1) ICSID Convention constituted general waiver of immunity but did not meet elevated threshold of submission to jurisdiction for purposes of s 2(2) SIA 1978 – Judge also said s 9 SIA 1978 required English court to make own determination of whether Zimbabwe had agreed to arbitration – In any event, Judge said registration of ICSID award purely administrative act and therefore not exercise of adjudicative jurisdiction, meaning SIA 1978 did not apply at all to registration proceedings under 1966 Act –
Both Spain and Zimbabwe appealed decisions – CA said registering ICSID award under s 1 1966 Act engaged adjudicative jurisdiction of English courts – Regarding s 2(2) SIA 1978, CA said article 54(1) ICSID Convention constituted prior written agreement by which contracting states to ICSID Convention submitted to jurisdiction of courts of other contracting states – Agreement to article 54(1) sufficiently express and clear submission to jurisdiction to satisfy s 2(2) and displace immunity afforded by s 1(1) SIA 1978 in respect of each appellant state – Spain and Zimbabwe appealed to SC –
SC unanimously dismissed appeals – Said Spain and Zimbabwe submitted to jurisdiction of English courts under s 2(2) SIA 1978 by virtue of article 54(1) ICSID Convention and, consequently, could not rely on state immunity to oppose registration of ICSID awards against them – Appeals dismissed.