New Zealand Supreme Court

Sexual offending, veracity evidence

Frankhouser v R [2026] NZSC 42 (4 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – F charged in DC with 10 counts of sexual offending against complainant between 2005-2018 – Jury found F guilty of five charges and sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment – CA dismissed appeal against conviction –  

Applied to SC for leave to appeal against the decisions declining applications to adduce veracity evidence about complainant – Involved adducing statements in 2010 Oranga Tamariki case note and cross-examination of complainant on medical notes from 2016 – Case note ruled inadmissible – At trial complainant allowed to be cross-examined on prior denial of abuse – CA said on appeal no miscarriage of justice – 

SC agreed with CA – Also no matter of general or public importance arose here – Application dismissed.

Family Protection claim, ‘inexcusable” delay

Gibson v MakGill [2026] NZSC 43 (4 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Ly’s father, L, succumbed to cancer in 1976 – Ly’s brother, R, had by then abandoned university studies to run family farm, which was owned in two half shares by their parents, L and N – Under L’s will, N received life interest in L’s half share – L’s overriding objective to provide support to still relatively young N – L’s will provided for comparatively little to go to two sisters Ly and G – Probate granted in July 1976 – 

Ly alleged L promised N would ‘level things up’ between three siblings – However, in 2016, N sold her own half share in farm to R’s family trust for $4.544 million plus GST – Most of purchase price forgiven by gift – Ly said learned about transaction in 2021 and realised father’s promise proved false –  

In August 2022, Ly brought proceedings against executor of L’s estate, MakG, under Family Protection Act 1955 – HC refused to extend time under s 9, saying approximate 45-year delay “inexcusable” – CA refused appeal – Ly sought leave to appeal to SC – 

SC said Ly essentially wanted to challenge fact findings – No question of general or public importance – No appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, leapfrog appeal

Kaka v Trustees of Miria Marae [2026] NZSC 45 (5 May 2026)  

Unsuccessful leave application – In November 2024, Māori Land Court dismissed self-represented K’s application for injunction preventing Marae trustees from proceeding with planned development, and in particular, from relocating whare tupuna – In August 2025, Māori Appellate Court declined leave to appeal out of time, saying K failed to validly explain delay – Said need for finality and proposed appeal unmeritorious –  

K sought leave to appeal from Māori Appellate Court – Said decision procedurally unfair and contrary to both tikanga Māori and Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 – For essentially the same reasons, K said exceptional circumstances warranting leapfrog appeal directly to SC – 

SC did not accept any such circumstances existed – Even proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance as K suggested, no reason why issues could not be dealt with in CA – Application dismissed. 

Extradition, drug importing 

McKelvy v United States of America [2026] NZSC 46 (5 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave applications – DC ruled McK eligible for surrender to USA under Extradition Act 1999 regarding cocaine offences – McK simultaneously appealed and applied for judicial review of decision, but HC dismissed both applications, saying judicial review application “entirely duplicative of the appeal” – CA denied McK leave to bring second appeal against extradition eligibility decision and dismissed appeal against HC judicial review decision – 

McK applied for leave to: 1) appeal from the CA judgment dismissing appeal against HC judicial review decision and 2) appeal directly from HC judgment dismissing appeal against DC eligibility decision – 

Essence of United States’ case, as disclosed by Record of Case (ROC), McK one of five men who conspired to export large quantity of cocaine by ship from Peru to New Zealand, its ultimate destination, via Beaumont, Texas (USA) and Romania –

Alleged conspirators charged in USA with conspiracy to import drugs to, and export drugs from, Texas, amongst other charges –

SC said principal question in proposed appeal whether double criminality requirement in Extradition Act and the Treaty on Extradition between New Zealand and the United States of America satisfied – 

SC said, among other things, argument drugs in transit in New Zealand port not imported into New Zealand did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant leave – Application dismissed.

Hate speech, Bill of Rights 

Hoban v Attorney-General [2026] NZSC 48 (5 May 2026) 

Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal – Appeal had concerned “hate speech” provisions in Human Rights Act 1993 – H said provisions inconsistent with right to be free from discrimination because only prohibited hate speech based on colour, race, or ethnic or national origin, and not hate speech based on sexual orientation – While SC granted leave in general terms, counsel to address applicability of ss 5 and 19(2) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application allowed. 

Sexual offending, Unanimity direction 

Laiman v R [2026] NZSC 49 (6 May 2026)  

Unsuccessful leave application – Jury found L guilty of one representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection – Sentenced to three years six months’ imprisonment – CA dismissed appeal against conviction and sentence – L applied for leave to appeal conviction to SC –  

L said trial Judge ought to have given unanimity direction to jury – Issue arose from section of complainant’s cross-examination where contradicted statements made in evidential video interview (EVI) – Complainant 11 years old at time of EVI and 13 years old at time of the cross-examination –  

SC said case involved applying settled principle to particular facts – No matter of general or public importance arose – No appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, time delay 

Dunstan v Credit Union South (Now Unity Credit Union) [2026] NZSC 50 (6 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented D applied for time extension for leave to appeal CA judgment of 3 December 2021 –  

SC said delay inordinate and declined time extension – Said would have declined leave in any event – Said outcome of proposed appeal would not turn on question of principle D invited SC to decide – Application dismissed.

Professional negligence claim, full and final settlement

Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd v Gibson Sheat [2026] NZSC 51 (7 May 2026)

Unsuccessful leave application – Following unsecured land purchase transaction, applicant investor LCIL found itself at risk of losing deposit of some $463,000 when vendor got into difficulties – LCIL sought legal advice on risk from solicitors, GS – GS advised LCIL to take over vendor’s mortgage interests –  

When potential flaw in GS advice identified, LCIL’s principal shareholder, L, formally raised concerns about advice – GS took this as notice of potential claim and notified insurers – At that stage GS thought it unlikely LCIL would incur loss –  

Discussions ensued between parties’ representatives – On 26 February 2016 GS offered to resume acting if LCIL agreed no claim would be brought against GS – In consideration, GS would deduct $100,000 from outstanding invoices – LCIL counter-offered by email on 29 February 2016, saying would withdraw litigation threat and would accept Gibson Sheat’s terms, save that it required fee reduction of $131,651 plus GST – Email exchange followed, culminating in telephone discussion the same day between L and GS’s W involving agreement to combined terms of email exchange and reduction to outstanding invoices of $105,000 plus GST – W sent email, recording terms and saying would draft deed accordingly – Email from L thanked W for his email, expressed hopes for improved relationship and provided instructions for work to be undertaken by GS –  

GS prepared draft written agreement but never executed or pursued - As HC Judge noted, terms of the informal 29 February agreement performed, including GS giving LCIL agreed fee credit –  

Ultimately, litigation ensued in which LCIL sued GS for professional negligence – GS relied on email exchange, discussion on 29 February 2016 and subsequent performance as constituting full and final settlement of claim – Sought summary judgment, but unsuccessfully – Question of whether proceedings had been settled subject of preliminary question –  

HC said it was full and final settlement – CA agreed for essentially same reasons as HC –  

SC said LCIL’s arguments reprised those made unsuccessfully in both courts below – Said one proposed ground might raise, in the abstract, question of general or public importance regarding legal profession fiduciary obligations in context of dispute involving foreshadowed claim of professional negligence – However, and essentially for reasons given in the concurrent HC and CA decisions did not consider this appropriate case in which to address matter – Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, taxation issues 

McGuire v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZSC 52 (7 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented McG sought leave to appeal from CA striking out most of appeal under r 44A(1)(c) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on ground those parts of the appeal were frivolous, vexatious or otherwise abuse of process – 

SC said proposed appeal concerned McG’s attempts to challenge tax assessments in proceedings brought outside dispute resolution regime in the Tax Administration Act 1994 –  

Identified issue of general or public importance as clarifying the status of reports prepared by the Commissioner’s Disputes Review Unit (DRU) – SC accepted might be issue of general or public importance, but not persuaded case here provided appropriate vehicle to consider issue, particularly given late stage at which reliance on the DRU report on matter advanced – Also, success prospects did not justify leave – Application dismissed.

Lego, “compatibility”

Lego Holding A/S v Zuru New Zealand Ltd [2026] NZSC 55 (7 May 2026) 

Successful leave application – Case concerned Z making “compatibility statements” and taking other measures to indicate its products compatible with Lego building blocks – Approved question whether CA correct to allow appeal. 

Guilty plea, revocation of

Timmerman v R [2026] NZSC 53 (8 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Concerned attempted revocation of prior guilty plea based on combination of delay and adverse health –  

In March 2020, T arrested for disorderly behaviour at Rotorua police station – Subsequent search of T’s campervan parked outside station, and later location in which he parked and lived, discovered prohibited firearms, prohibited magazines and ammunition – Firearms were said to belong to S, also charged – T charged with conspiring to defeat justice, forgery, eight charges of unlawful possession under Arms Act 1983, attempting to obstruct course of justice and trespass –  

T faced various health issues and delays while awaiting trial – Remanded in custody for over three months (first three weeks under close supervision), where assessed as having mild autistic traits and experiences of trauma, but was fit to stand trial – Placed on EM bail in June 2020 – COVID-19 restrictions applied at the time – Made two suicide attempts in 2020, following which met with crisis services and began taking antidepressants – Clinical psychologist later diagnosed T as having post-traumatic stress disorder causing anxiety and low mood – Also had heart issues –  

Charges of conspiring to defeat justice, forgery and attempting to obstruct course of justice discharged in November 2021 – Received sentence indication on 2 December on remaining charges and decided to accept it after five days’ consideration, pleading guilty to them – Sentenced to 9 months’ supervision – Maintained innocence – Co-defendant, S, had all but one charge dismissed and acquitted of remaining charge in March 2024 –  

In 2023, T applied time extension to appeal conviction – CA granted time extension but dismissed appeal because finding no miscarriage of justice –  

T applied for leave to appeal to SC – Said guilty plea not truly voluntary given experience of exceptional stress (contributed to by heart condition) and indefinite adjournment of his trial, and what T described as “unusually severe” impacts from awaiting trial. Additionally, S’s acquittal showed T may have had defence – Exceptional circumstances at play minimised risk of floodgates opening –   

SC said categories on which guilty plea might be revoked to avoid miscarriage of justice not closed, but revocation would only be permitted in exceptional circumstances – Pressure and delay might potentially be relevant factors –  

SC acknowledged T faced contemporaneous health and personal issues, contributing to stress – However, nothing advanced suggested could be assessed as truly exceptional, or that CA erred to conclude T made rational and informed decision to plead guilty having regard to further trial delay, risk of conviction and likely sentence – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, judgment recall

Chen v Goodmore Investments (New Zealand) Ltd; Chen v Tawa Trade Finance Ltd [2026] NZSC 54 (8 May 2026)

Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented C – Sought to rely on third recall category – Existence of exceptional reasons why justice required judgment be recalled – Said not lawyer, lawyer of choice overseas when leave application prepared and using hallucinated AI authorities in submissions occurred in good faith – 

SC said all beside point – Nothing advanced to warrant recall – In particular, nothing in application raised any question about Court’s primary conclusions – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, stay of proceedings 

Terence Easthope v Marion Fusipala Ale as Executor of the Estate of Malu Ale [2026] NZSC 56 (8 May 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application and stay – Self-represented T sought leave to appeal from CA declining stay application – Stay sought related to HC granting summary judgment to A and ordered T to vacate property in which living in Mount Eden, Auckland – 

A executor of her father MA’s estate – MA died in November 2000 – At time, married to but separated from V – Couple had four children: A, T, J and L –

In MA’s will estate to be shared equally between V and J – Principal asset MA’s half-interest in Mt Eden property – V obtained life interest in MA’s estate’s half-interest in Mt Eden property after successful claim under Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA) – V lived in property until death in August 2021 –

In V’s will, estate was to be divided equally between A, T, J and L –

After V died, A, as executor of MA’s estate, and L, as executor of V’s estate, entered Deed of Family Arrangement – Under this deed, Mt Eden property to be sold to allow net proceeds of sale (after payment of debts) to be distributed with one-half paid to V’s estate – The one-half share would then be distributed in accordance with her will, with, HC said, one-half of MA’s estate to go to J – 

A then arranged for T to be served with notice to vacate property so it could be sold with vacant possession – T refused to vacate property – Had lived there, initially with mother until her death, since about 2001 or 2002 – When T refused to leave property, A sought summary judgment for vacant possession – HC granted summary judgment and vacant possession – T appealed to CA – Also had FPA proceedings relating to mother’s estate on foot in HC – Finally, said FC accepted for filing T’s FPA claim regarding MA’s estate, made out of time –  

Declining stay, the CA said T’s “strongest argument” was that, without stay, appeal right will be rendered nugatory because property would be sold if order for vacant possession enforced - But CA also noted he had no claim to full ownership and considered other beneficiaries’ interests and the estates incurring costs – CA agreed with HC T’s success prospects on appeal low and best T might secure would be to increase property share to 50 per cent – This was amount executors undertook to hold on trust pending T’s claims being resolved –  

SC said CA applied settled principles regarding stays – No question of general or public importance – no appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application declined.

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal procedure, extension of time, forfeiture orders

Noble v Commissioner of Police [2026] NZCA 153 (4 May 2026)

Successful application for extension of time to file case on appeal – Mr and Mrs N sought to appeal asset and profit forfeiture orders made in HC under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Mr N pleaded guilty to possessing and selling synthetic cannabis, Mrs N pleaded guilty to money laundering – Forfeiture orders included vehicles, family home and profit – Failed to file case on appeal within extended timetable and appeals deemed abandoned – Applied for reinstatement, treated as application for further extension – Appeared to have relied substantially on AI-generated material and cited multiple irrelevant or fictitious cases – 

Court applied Almond v Read criteria – Length of delay not significant but absence of genuine explanation – Court recognised importance of home to Mr and Mrs N and could not say proposed appeal was hopeless – Strict timetable imposed – Security for costs to be paid - No further extensions accepted – Application granted. 

Criminal, conviction and sentence appeal, propensity evidence, alleged trial counsel error, historical sexual offending, applicability of R v AM bands – Login required

[D] v R [2026] NZCA 157 (4 May 2026)

Criminal procedure, leave to adduce new evidence, importing and possession of objectionable material, 2014 UK Sentencing Guidelines – Login required

[A] v R [2026] NZCA 158 (4 May 2026)

Costs, legal aid, exceptional circumstances

Khal v Shirely [2026] NZCA 161 (6 May 2026)

Costs decision - K unsuccessful in application for stay of enforcement of HC orders pending determination of appeal - K legally aided, meaning no order for costs may be made against him unless there were exceptional circumstances –

Exceptional circumstances justifying an award of costs against K - Complete absence of merit in appeal - Stay application without merit - Evidence about K’s financial position suggested assets of material value – S in poor financial circumstances - Award of costs in sum sought complied with s 45(1) Legal Services Act 2011 that K’s liability not exceed amount reasonable for him to pay.    

Criminal, sentence appeal, error in applying Moses v R methodology

Finn v R [2026] NZCA 164 (6 May 2026)

Partly successful appeal against sentence - F pleaded guilty to methamphetamine dealing and firearms offending – Sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment -
 
Appeal unsuccessful on totality ground - Starting point of 11.5 years reflected totality and within range - Uplifts for each related but different sets of offences made with appreciation total period of imprisonment should be in proportion to gravity of overall offending - Overall starting point not excessive or wrong in principle - Appeal should be allowed to correct mathematical error to give effect to Judge’s intentions - Judge applied one uplift to end point of step two of Moses v R methodology instead of at step two - Judge should have applied uplifts for personal aggravating factors to adjusted starting point - Mathematical correction made reducing F’s sentence to 7 years 10 months' imprisonment - Appeal allowed on that basis.