New Zealand Supreme Court

Defamation, damages, quantum 

Malik v Syed [2025] NZSC 193 (17 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – M and S business associates who fell out – HC said between October 2016 and December 2017, M and wife W published 20 defamatory statements about S – Most publications emails to group of recipients; some also published on social media, in particular, Facebook; others videos posted on YouTube – Publications gravamen summarised in CA decision – HC awarded $225,000 damages – 

Proposed SC appeal aimed to challenge liability – SC said leave criteria not met – Appeal would turn on particular facts – No question of general or public importance raised – No risk of miscarriage of justice in civil sense – Application dismissed. 

Manslaughter, sentence 

Mulford v R [2025] NZSC 194 (18 December 2025) 

Successful leave application – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal – M convicted of manslaughter of two-year-old stepdaughter – HC sentenced M to five years and six months' imprisonment – Unsuccessfully appealed sentence. 

Public Works Act, functions delegation 

Pascoe v Minister of Land Information [2025] NZSC 195 (18 December 2025) 

Partly successful appeal – Self-represented P owned farm in northern Taranaki – State Highway 3 crossed Mt Messenger to south of farm – New Zealand Transport Agency | Waka Kotahi (NZTA) building bypass taking highway around Mt Messenger and through P’s land – NZTA appointed The Property Group Ltd (TPG) to negotiate with landowners for acquisition of necessary land –  

TPG privately owned company and accredited supplier, meaning generally accredited by Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) to undertake certain work connected with acquisition and disposal of land for public works –  

Under delegated authority, LINZ gave P notice under s 18 Public Works Act of Minister’s desire to acquire land – Section required Minister to make every endeavour to negotiate in good faith with landowner to try to reach agreement – 

TPG approached P to seek agreement, but P declined to engage with TPG – Insisted on negotiating with Minister or LINZ officials – After minimum three-month period for attempted negotiations, Minister continued with compulsory acquisition, issuing notice of intention to take land under s 23 – P sought judicial review of decision – Environment Court ruled taking land fair, sound and reasonably necessary – 

Appeal to SC concerned preliminary questions of law arising from P’s judicial review application – P unsuccessful on issues in HC and CA – 

Counsel asked to focus on whether negotiations function could be exercised by accredited contractor, and if so whether function needed to be formally delegated – Also issue whether outsourcing negotiations function consistent with Minister’s statutory duty to “make every endeavour to negotiate in good faith” – 

SC majority partly allowed appeal – Court unanimously agreed Minister’s negotiations function could be subdelegated to accredited supplier, or NZTA official – Certain statutory requirements would have to be met – Also agreed nothing precluded Minister or delegate from engaging person not themselves a delegate to help them perform negotiations function – 

However, majority said LINZ officials delegated negotiations function outside Public Service without following necessary statutory processes – Appeal partly allowed. 

Mortgagee sale, stay 

Golden Touch Investment and Trade Company Ltd v Zhu [2025] NZSC 196 (18 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Golden Touch owned five-unit development in Auckland – Second applicant Golden Touch director and guarantor under mortgage granted to Z – Golden Touch breached funding arrangements and property sold in mortgagee sale – Shortfall resulted – 

Three separate proceedings in HC – All respondents’ summary judgment applications granted, and possession orders made in favour of CIH – Z appealed to CA which declined application for stay pending determination of appeal against HC judgment – Appealed CA ruling to SC –  

SC accepted respondents’ submissions proposed appeal moot, given Substantive Appeal has been deemed abandoned – Not in interests of justice to allow leave application – Application dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, review 

Re Prasad [2025] NZSC 199 (18 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful review application – Self-represented P sought review of decision declining to accept document for filing –  

SC said application simply another attempt to re-litigate matters already determined and properly caught by Court’s earlier direction – Application dismissed. 

High Court of Australia

Sexual offences, experience evidence 

WHS v R [2025] HCA 51 (10 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from New South Wales CA – WHS convicted on retrial (second trial) of four sexual offences against child under age of ten years, MW – Before second trial, WHS sought to adduce evidence said to be capable of proving that MW displayed sexualised behaviour prior to alleged offending, and police interview in which MW described being touched indecently by different young male – Evidence said to be capable of explaining how MW, aged nine years old when she first described alleged offences to police, could describe in detail WHS’s alleged sexual abuse – 

Principal issue in HC whether evidence admissible in second trial, having regard to s 293 (now s 294CB) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (CPA) – Section 293(3) rendered inadmissible any evidence sought to be adduced that disclosed or implied complainant had or may have had sexual experience or lack of sexual experience, or had or may have taken part or not taken part in sexual activity – 

Section 293(6) CPA, when read with s 293(4) permitted evidence to be adduced when cross-examining complainant where, amongst other things, it had been "disclosed or implied in prosecution case " complainant had or may have had sexual experience or lack of sexual experience or had or may have taken part in or not taken part in sexual activity –  

HC unanimously ruled exception in s 293(6) not engaged here – Separately, Court unanimously rejected miscarriage of justice resulted from prosecutor’s final address – Appeal dismissed. 

Student visa, jurisdictional error

Kanyan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 52 (10 December 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Federal Court – K arrived in Australia in 2014 on student visa – In August 2017, applied for further student visa – Minister’s delegate refused, saying K not "a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student", as required by cl 500.212 Sch 2 to Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – K applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) for review of delegate's decision and completed form which said did not have current Confirmation of Enrolment in registered course of study – K consented to Tribunal deciding review without hearing – Tribunal affirmed delegate's decision – Said K not enrolled in registered course of study as required by cl 500.211 Sch 2 Migration Regulations – 

K sought judicial review of Tribunal's decision in Circuit Court – Court not satisfied grounds in K’s application raised arguable case and dismissed application under r 44.12(1)(a) Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – K applied to Federal Court for time extension and leave to appeal Circuit Court judgment – Judge dismissed applications, concluding proposed appeal had little prospect of success – 

HC said K had not identified any jurisdictional error that could entitle K to relief sought – Nothing in judge’s reasons for decision suggested she misconstrued or misconceived nature of her function or extent of power, being correcting errors that might amount to jurisdictional error – Appeal dismissed. 

Nuisance, Sydney Light Rail construction 

Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2025] HCA 53 (17 December 2025) 

Successful appeals from New South Wales CA – Concerned tort of private nuisance and intersection with statutory authorities’ powers relating to Sydney Light Rail construction – 

HL lead plaintiffs on behalf of all people holding or having held rights to land in vicinity Sydney Light Rail claiming to have suffered loss or damage through substantial interference with their enjoyment of land – Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) planned and procured construction of Sydney Light Rail, although did not perform construction work – 

Trial judge partly upheld HL claims for private nuisance – CA unanimously allowed TfNSW’s appeal, saying TfNSW committed no nuisance – Both trial judge and CA dismissed HL’s claim damages award should include compensation for litigation funder’s commission – 

HC unanimously allowed HL’s appeal – Said private nuisance principles balanced plaintiff's right to land with defendant’s liberties to use other land – Majority said liability in private nuisance arose from substantial interference with plaintiff's right to land where interference with ordinary enjoyment of land if: (i) defendant uses their land for not common and ordinary purpose; or (ii) defendant's land use did not reasonably minimise extent of substantial interference with plaintiff's ordinary enjoyment of land –  

Applying test here, majority said had been substantial interference with HL’s ordinary enjoyment of land and TfNSW failed to discharge onus of establishing planned and procured construction of Sydney Light Rail in manner that reasonably minimised substantial interference – HC rejected TfNSW's contention s 43A Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applied to defeat TfNSW liability in private nuisance – TfNSW's asserted defence of statutory authority also unsuccessful – Appeals allowed. 

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Judicial review, public interest immunity

In the matter of an application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review [2025] UKSC 47 (17 December 2025) 

Successful appeal from Northern Ireland CA – Concerns test applied when court judicially reviewed Coroner’s decision to disclose gists of information over which Minister asserted Public Interest Immunity (PII) on Crown’s behalf – PII came into play where relevant aspect of public interest indicated evidence which would otherwise be relevant and admissible in legal proceedings should not be disclosed or placed in public domain and therefore should be treated as inadmissible or as admissible only in form of gist of information – 

Appeal involved challenge to two Coroner decisions to disclose gist of evidence over which Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, acting by Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Secretary of State) asserted PII – Decisions during inquest into death of Liam Paul Thompson (deceased), shot and killed in 1994 near gap in peace line separating nationalist and unionist neighbourhoods in Belfast – No one ever been held accountable for death – Inquest was opened in August 1995 but subject to long and profoundly disturbing delays – Hearings commenced before Coroner on 3 April 2023 – Inquest moved forward in evidence ‘modules’ – Third and final module due to commence on 26 February 2024 and scheduled to last for 3 weeks – 

Following Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (2023 Act), unless Coroner heard all evidence by 1 May 2024, would be unable to make final determination, verdict or findings – 

One issue in third module whether security forces received information from covert human intelligence source (informer) or other sensitive and secret information in connection with deceased’s death – Ministry of Defence and Police Service of Northern Ireland held documents relevant or potentially relevant to question – However, Secretary of State considered disclosing documents contrary to public interest in protecting national security, particularly because would be contrary to policy of neither confirming nor denying using informers or other secret information sources – Secretary of State claimed PII attached to documents – Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland (Chief Constable) supported claim – Together, documents referred to as ‘Folders 1-7’ – 

Consequently, before could hear evidence in module three, Coroner had to decide whether to uphold PII claim for Folders 1-7, and if so whether nevertheless in public interest to disclose some material contained in documents by way of gist (summary drafted in such way as to protect any secret information) – Coroner held hearings in February 2024 with view to deciding –  

Coroner decided to uphold PII claim – However, also decided gist of information in Folder 7 should be disclosed and admitted as evidence in inquest (gist 1) – Secretary of State and Chief Constable challenged decision by judicial review in HC – HC applied ordinary public law review standards, asking whether Coroner’s decision within range of reasonable responses, and upheld decision – After debate with Chief Constable, Coroner issued new judgment – Revised gist of Folder 7 (gist 2) should be disclosed, superseding gist – Chief Constable accepted Coroner’s decision to issue gist 2, but Secretary of State challenged decision by judicial review in HC – HC again applied ordinary public law standards and upheld Coroner’s decision – 

Secretary of State appealed to CA – CA majority dismissed appeal – Agreed with HC applicable standards ordinary public law review standards, properly informed by context – Not for court to itself determine merits of decision to disclose gists – Secretary of State appealed to SC – 

SC unanimously allowed appeal – Said question whether piece of evidence covered by PII substantive question of law of evidence – Neither public authority claiming PII, nor court determining whether PII attached, had any discretion in matter – Objective question whether public interest required evidence not be disclosed – Appellate or reviewing court therefore had to determine whether first instance court identified relevant rule of substantive law in light of proper assessment of public interest and applied rule correctly – 

First instance court (and particularly coroner conducting inquest) had to take great care to be fully and accurately informed about competing aspects of public interest before reaching overall conclusion whether information should be disclosed or not – Inquest inquisitorial (rather than adversarial) investigation into circumstances of death – Option for litigant in adversarial proceedings of not adducing evidence to avoid detrimental impact on public interest of disclosure not available – 

SC found six errors in Coroner’s decisions to disclose gists – First, Coroner failed to apply correct test before departing from Secretary of State’s assessment of nature and extent of damage to national security which would flow from disclosure – Secondly, Coroner incorrectly concluded no need to carry out balancing exercise – Thirdly, Coroner (when, in alternative part of reasoning, carried out balancing exercise) failed to weigh in balance Secretary of State’s assessment of nature and extent of damage to national security – Fourthly, Coroner wrongly failed to obtain Secretary of State’s view before making any decision to disclose gist of information contained in Folder 7 – Fifthly, regarding PII claim Coroner ought to have identified applicant as being Secretary of State, rather than Chief Constable – Failure caused Coroner to fall into error of failing to take steps to obtain and consider Secretary of State’s reasoned views before deciding to disclose gists – Sixthly, Coroner failed to take into account no prospect of evidence in inquest being completed prior to 1 May 2024 deadline – Clearly material consideration in balancing exercise –  

HC and CA majority fell into error by failing to recognise errors – Also HC and CA majority erred by considering were restricted to reviewing Coroner’s decision on ordinary public law grounds, and by not recognising, as reviewing court, they ought to have formed their own view on whether Coroner right or wrong on merits and where overall public interest lay – appeal allowed.