New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigant, fee waiver

Re Slavich [2025] NZSC 148 (30 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful application to review Registrar’s decision – Self-represented S applied to review Registrar’s decision not to grant fee waiver for leave application – Referred to SC Judge – 

Judge agreed with Registrar leave application without merit, vexatious and would not be pursued by reasonable solvent litigant – As CA said, simply an attempt to re-litigate matters already determined in earlier proceedings – Consequently, fee waiver application dismissed. 

Costs, Beddoe orders

Maka as Trustees of the Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Trust v Toailoa [2025] NZSC 149 (30 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave applications – Judgment related to two leave applications – Applicants in one trustees of Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Property Charitable Trust (SISDA Property Trust) – Applicant in other also charitable trust, Samoan Independent Seventh Day Adventist Church (SISDAC) – SISDAC operated from more than 20 locations in New Zealand –

Proposed appeals concerned HC costs and Beddoe orders CA confirmed in varied form relating to costs of action by three individual respondents – Evidence SISDAC affairs mismanaged by Church spiritual leader, family and associates –  

SC accepted principles guiding availability of Beddoe and prospective costs orders in connection with charitable trusts are matter of public importance – However, contention proceeding not in trusts’ best interests on facts had insufficient prospects of success to justify leave – Applications dismissed. 

Relationship property, intestacy 

Rimmer v Wilton [2025] NZSC 150 (31 October 2025) 

Successful leave application – Leave granted in general terms – However, counsel asked to focus on interplay between agreement to contract out of Property (Relationships) Act 1976 under s 21 and W’s entitlements under intestacy provisions of Administration Act 1969 – In particular, submissions to address whether, if Option B under s 61 Property (Relationships) Act elected, surviving partner may receive entitlements under will or on intestacy while relying on s 21 agreement – Leave granted. 

Self-represented litigant, defamation 

Fam v Nguyen [2025] NZSC 151 (7 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented F and second to fourth respondents found liable in defamation proceedings N took – $100,000 damages awarded against F –  

F filed notice of appeal from HC decision in CA 23 September 2024 – 23 December 2024 F sought, and was granted, time extension to 22 January 2025 to file case on appeal – F took no steps – Appeal deemed abandoned 23 January 2025 – 3 February 2025, F sought further time extension – CA declined – F sought leave to appeal to SC –  

SC said no challenge to settled principles CA applied to time extension – Rather, F saying CA wrong to say case hopeless – No question of general or public importance accordingly arose – Nor did anything raised suggest in interests of justice for SC to hear and determine this matter – No appearance of substantial miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal, application for leave to adduce further evidence, leave to bring a second appeal against sentence, possession of objectionable publications, gravity of offending, discounts for personal mitigating factors – Login required

[F] v R [2025] NZCA 581

Criminal, appeal against admissibility of evidence obtained from searches, search warrants executed plus warrantless search of vehicle, balancing test – Login required

[R] v R [2025] NZCA 583

Criminal, leave to appeal out of time against convictions for sexual offending, language barriers, death of trial counsel, loss of trial counsel’s file – Login required

[S] v R [2025] NZCA 585

Māori land law, acquisition and confiscation of ancestral land, duress, undue influence, legitimate expectation, definition of “rebellion” under New Zealand Settlements Act 1863

Minhinnick v R [2025] NZCA 584

Unsuccessful appeal against HC decision dismissing challenges to lawfulness of acquisition of land by the Crown, pursuant to an agreement executed by representatives of Ngāti Te Ata and subsequent exercise of Ngāti Te Ata’s ancestral land -  Crown confiscated wāhi tapu under New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 - Other wāhi tapu compulsorily acquired and subsequently set aside for forest and later ironsand mining – Crown also acquired land under 1864 Deed -  

Deed was neither unconscionable nor procured by duress or undue influence - Confiscation lawful under 1863 Act, no fiduciary or equitable duty breached - 20th-century land takings and mining licence valid under statute, and the 1990 MOU did not create binding obligations or a legitimate expectation of settlement - Purpose of 1863 Act supported wide definition of “rebellion” - No distinction made between offensive and defensive acts - 1863 Act directed at resistance to Crown authority - Grievances matters for Waitangi Tribunal. 

New Zealand High Court

Interim injunction 

Uber Group Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc [2025] NZHC 3227 (30 October 2025) Downs J 

Unsuccessful interim injunction application – UG claimed UT infringed UG trademarks, breached Fair Trading Act 1986, and claimed passing off – Related to representations made during promotional partnership – UG sought interim injunction (pending trial) – 

Application declined – HC accepted serious issue to be tried but balance of convenience and overall justice of case did not favour interim relief – Application declined. 

Sentencing, sexual violence and related offending 

R v Bruce [2025] NZHC 3280 (30 October 2025) Edwards J 

Sentencing – B sentenced on 31 charges of sexual and violence-related offending – HC found B guilty on all 31 charges – Acquitted of two charges in Judge-alone trial earlier 2025 –

Offending occurred against five former partners, over 15-year period – Involved multiple incidents of sexual violence including multiple rapes of four victims, multiple threats to kill, and physical violence – B would berate, verbally abuse, and pester victims until no other choice but to submit to demands –

HC imposed sentence of 19 years' imprisonment for all offending with 10 years’ MPI – Psychologists' reports indicated B’s risk of further offending high – Exacerbated by refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing – By fine margin, HC declined preventive saying lengthy finite sentence, with possibility of extended supervision order for further I0 years provided adequate protection for future intimate partners.  

Application for interim orders 

Performance Sailcraft Pty Ltd v Laser Class Association Inc t/a International Laser Class Association [2025] NZHC 3287 (30 October 2025) Jagose J 

Successful without notice interlocutory application for interim orders – Australian PS applied to prevent US Laser Class Association acting on purported termination of sale and purchase agreement governed by New Zealand law – Also required reinstatement of PS as Approved Builder of Laser sail boats to previous position and withdraw statements – 

Contract interpretation issues not capable of present resolution and lack of resolution offered PS tenable basis upon which might be able to succeed at trial – Accordingly had serious case for trial – 

Balance of convenience favoured PS with cancellation significantly affecting substantial part of business – Least irremediable prejudice to restore status quo ante – Pending further Court order, orders not to take steps to implement purported agreement termination and to reinstate PS to previous position – Direction for agreed neutral statement for publication in same media as previous communications. 

High Court of Australia

Immigration, protection, YouTube and other videos 

Plaintiff M27/2025 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 40 (15 October 2025) 

Successful application for constitutional or other writ following judicial review application –  

P sought judicial review of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs delegate’s refusing application for protection (subclass 866) visa –  

P feared persecution if returned to country of origin, due to "programs" P made, including on social media platforms YouTube and Twitter, said to "expose the evils" of government of that country – Enclosed with application was PDF document including screenshots of search results from both Google and YouTube, with "thumbnail" images of YouTube videos with titles in Mandarin characters – Also included English text P added providing general description of searches undertaken –  

Department of Home Affairs officer wrote to P requesting, amongst other things, English translation of PDF document and further information, evidence and clarification of claims including details of YouTube channel – Common ground letter involved exercise of power in s 56 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) –  

P responded (s 56 response) – Amongst other things, s 56 response included screenshot containing Mandarin characters, said to show numbers of subscribers and views of YouTube channel – s 56 response said "Google Translate" could be used to verify video titles matched his descriptions – Added that "vast number and length of my videos make it impossible for me to translate each one" and Twitter also "has an automatic translation feature for browsing" – P did not, amongst other things, provide translation of PDF document – 

Refusing P’s application for protection visa, delegate said P "did not provide any official translations of his documents" and "any documents that are not translated ... will not be included as part of this assessment" –  

HC said delegate failed to comply with ss 54 and 56 Migration Act – Failures material and jurisdictional errors – Section 54 effect that delegate obliged to have regard to all information included in P's application, including PDF document – Similarly, delegate obliged to have regard to s 56 response – Although parts of documents in Mandarin, not open to delegate to treat all documents involving untranslated components as having not been "included as part of this assessment" – HC also satisfied necessary in interests of administration of justice to grant P time extension he required to apply for constitutional or other writ – Application granted. 

Supreme Court of Canada

Sentencing, mandatory minimum, Canadian Charter 

Quebec (Attorney-General ) v Senneville [2025] SCC 33 (31 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Quebec CA – Case was about constitutionality of two mandatory minimum sentences established for possession and accessing child pornography – More specifically, question whether one-year prison sentences violated s 12 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protected against cruel and unusual punishment –  

S pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography – In another case, N pleaded guilty to charge of possession of child pornography – Both challenged mandatory minimum sentence in s 163.1(4)(a) Criminal Code, and S challenged mandatory minimum sentence in s 163(4.1)(a) – Said sentences unconstitutional as could lead to grossly disproportionate punishment, even in reasonably foreseeable scenario – Sentencing judge decided in their favour – CA dismissed prosecution’s appeal – Prosecution appealed to SC –  

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said minimum sentence might violate s 12 Charter when led to grossly disproportionate punishment, whether for accused person or offender in reasonably foreseeable scenario –  

Said s 12 analysis had two stages – First, fit and proportionate sentence be determined, either in case in question or for offender in reasonably foreseeable scenario – Second, sentence to be compared with mandatory minimum sentence – If difference between two disproportionately large, minimum sentence unconstitutional – Appeal dismissed. 

Sexual activity, consent 

R v Rioux [2025] SCC 34 (7 November 2025} 

Unsuccessful appeal from Quebec CA – Case about alleged sexual assault and whether person able to consent to sexual activity –  

Canadian law said person must consent voluntarily to sexual activity, and needs mental capacity to do so; otherwise, sexual activity might constitute sexual assault – To have capacity to consent, person must be capable of understanding: physical act and its sexual nature, sexual partner’s identity, and fact person could refuse to participate –  

When person cannot remember what happened during sexual act, for example because they were intoxicated, judge to look at all surrounding evidence, including direct and circumstantial evidence, not just what person recalled in testimony – 

R charged with sexually assaulting woman with whom he had previous relationship – At picnic in park, woman said drank alcohol and lost control over her body – Remembered only parts of evening and could not remember most of sexual activity at park or later at R’s home – Said no clear memory of what happened and believed may have been drugged – R said he believed woman fully consenting throughout – 

Trial Judge said Crown had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt for events at park, because R may have honestly, even if mistakenly, believed woman was capable of consenting and did consent to sexual activity – For later events at R’s home, judge said woman did not have capacity to consent to sexual activity there, but still said R may have believed otherwise – Judge found R not guilty –  

CA disagreed – Said trial judge made legal errors in assessing evidence – Trial judge treated R’s version of events as if could explain woman’s state of mind and failed to consider important circumstantial evidence about her physical and mental state – Set aside acquittal and ordered new trial on sexual activity at park, and not at home because latter not appealed – R appealed to SC – 

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said trial judge made two main errors on questions of law – First, said direct evidence about person’s state of mind requirement for determining their incapacity and absence of consent, trial judge mistook woman’s lack of direct evidence as lack of available evidence relating to her state of mind – Second, trial judge failed to understand woman’s circumstantial evidence was legally relevant, independent of any direct evidence – 

SC said judges had to look at full picture when deciding whether someone had capacity to consent – Included person’s evidence about state of mind and physical state before, during and after sexual activity – Here trial judge focused too much on woman’s lack of memory and ignored other signs that she may not have been capable of consenting – Appeal dismissed.