New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 9 October - 15 October 2025
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Bridge v The Crown [2025] NZSC 132 (2 October 2025)
Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented B sought recall of SC leave decline – Said judgment noted but omitted to engage with fundamental constitutional issues (right to invoke habeas corpus and her reliance on “de jure principles and [m]axims”) – Said omission justified recall –
SC said arguments repackaged and represented arguments already rejected as untenable – No exceptional circumstance justifying recall – Application dismissed.
Schmidt v eBada Property Investments Ltd [2025] NZSC 131 (3 October 2025)
Unsuccessful leave applications – Following series of property-related transactions S brought HC proceedings claiming breach of express trust and institutional constructive trust by eBada; and, against G personally, knowing receipt of proceeds of eBada’s breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and undue influence –
HC ruled for eBada and G on all grounds – S appealed to CA – CA upheld HC, rejected bias and predetermination allegations and declined application to file fifth amended statement of claim raising new arguments –
S applied for leave to appeal to SC – SC said largely reprised issues raised in lower courts – Proposed appeals raised no matter of general or public importance or general commercial significance – Application dismissed.
S (SC 61/2025) v Health and Disability Commissioner [2025] NZSC 134 (6 October 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented S sought leave to appeal CA decision – Complicated procedural history stemming from marriage counselling sessions where S not satisfied with counsellor’s services –
Issues referred to HDC – S, dissatisfied with HDC decision, issued judicial review proceedings against HDC – Partly succeeded in HC – CA said HC wrongly ruled HDC made errors justifying judicial review intervention – Allowed HDC’s appeal – S’s cross-appeal, alleging pre-determination among other things, dismissed –
S applied for leave to appeal to SC – SC said no matter of general or public importance – Proposed appeal related to particular circumstances – Application dismissed.
Falamoe v R [2025] NZSC 135 (9 October 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – F convicted of range of violent and sexual offences following trial – Sought leave to appeal CA upholding conviction on one charge, sexual conduct with child under 12 in breach of s 132(3) Crimes Act 1961 –
SC said issues essentially factual – No question of general or public importance – Application dismissed.
Manuka Doctor Ltd v Hill [2025] NZCA 516
Unsuccessful appeal by MDL against registration of MANUKA MEDIC in respect of mānuka-based cosmetics, skincare and therapeutic products - MANUKA DOCTOR was a trade mark used for similar products - Likely to deceive or cause confusion – Same or similar goods -
Focus on words DOCTOR and MEDIC which, although being similar length with two syllables, did not begin with the same letter, and shared only two letters - DOCTOR had more relaxed final syllable, whereas MEDIC sounded sharper and snappier - Though both marks shared MANUKA, it should be afforded less weight in the similarity analysis due to it being descriptive of the kind of goods MDL produced, as opposed to their origins - Marks were not similar and registration of MANUKA MEDIC mark would not likely cause confusion or deception - Average consumer of their products likely to exercise reasonable degree of care and not likely to purchase them out of “impulse" - They would focus on the distinctive elements of the marks, not their descriptive elements - Visual and aural differences were enough for average consumer to distinguish between them - Appeal dismissed.
Gibson v Macgill [2025] NZCA 528
Unsuccessful appeal by L against refusal to grant extension of time to lodge claim against her father’s estate under the Family Protection Act 1955 – Parents owned farm – Father died in 1976 – L’s brother R left majority of estate and worked farm for over 45 years – L said delay because she thought she would inherit from their mother who had transferred her interest in the farm to R -
Too late now to expose R to an adverse claim against father’s estate - R would be significantly prejudiced, were an extension granted, because of the evidential difficulties he would face in opposing L’s claim - Delay inexcusable - Prejudice of allowing matter to proceed would be significant to R, who had ordered his life in expectation his father’s will would not be challenged - Whether or not something had gone wrong with mother’s share in farm was irrelevant - Any case L may have against father’s estate dependent on whether he breached his moral duty to her in 1976 - While she may have an arguable case of a breach of moral duty, not sufficiently strong to overcome the 35–45-year delay – Appeal dismissed.
Donovan v Body Corporate 49407 [2025] NZCA 530
Unsuccessful appeal by D against Court order vesting unit in BC – Bankrupt for failure to pay BC levies – Official Assignee disclaimed interest – Unit vested in BC so it could sell unit to deal with outstanding indebtedness –
Restriction in previous Unit Titles Act 1972 on BC’s owning interests in land removed – BC had power to seek recovery of unpaid levies and seek recovery of debt in relation to expenses incurred for repair work - Provided obtaining ownership, undertaking repairs and then selling it, was for purpose of recovering such debts, BC could do so - BC had not created an estoppel by not earlier taking action to remove D from unit – Appeal dismissed.
[W] v R [2025] NZCA 529
Department of Internal Affairs v Christchurch Casinos Ltd [2025] NZHC 2933 (6 October 2025) Dunningham J
Penalties for breaching Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) – Following Department action, CCL admitted not complying with obligations under Act and settlement agreement entered – Department filed amended statement of claim – CCL filed notice of admissions, admitting seven breaches –
HC imposed total penalty of $5,060,000.
Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v Sylvestre [2025] SCC 30 (10 October 2025)
Unsuccessful appeal from Quebec CA – Case about deadline for enforcing payment under Quebec court judgment – Deadline known as “prescription” under Civil Code of Québec, set at 10 years –
In early 2000s, Council owed money to lawyer and other professionals for services provided (creditors) – Creditors obtained default judgments against Council – Debts never paid despite judgments – In 2016, creditors filed and served notice of execution to seize Council’s property – Bailiff considered Council’s property exempt from seizure, did not take anything – Council argued because no property seized, 10-year prescription not interrupted and period expired –
Quebec Superior Court and CA rejected argument – Council appealed to SC –
SC unanimously dismissed appeal – Filing and serving notice of execution counts as judicial application that interrupted prescription period – Creditors filed notice within period – Did not matter bailiff later found nothing to be taken and suspended seizure – Also did not matter bailiff did not notify debtor seizure suspended –
SC said 10-year period to ensure people act on time and bring stability to debtor-creditor relations, should not punish creditors who took right steps before deadline – Decision gave clarity and certainty about how judgment debts enforced and types of events potentially interrupting prescription – Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal judges have advised that LawPoints falls into the category of a Law Digest where a decision prohibits publication in news media or on the internet, but allows it in a law report or law digest. LawPoints will sometimes include information on such decisions, but lawyers will have to log in using their lawyer ID to view the decision.
Request copies of other cases and articles from the Law Society Library.