New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 20 March - 26 March 2025
Beware of an increase in scam attempts by phone and email targeting lawyers. Read our guidance about email scams and how to recognise them.
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Parker v R [2025] NZSC 15 (20 March 2025)
Unsuccessful application to review Registrar decision – Self-represented P had applied for leave for time extension –
SC Judge said SC previously ruled refusal to grant time extension not “determination of the person’s first appeal” for purposes of ss 236 and 237 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – Said no jurisdiction for SC to hear proposed appeal –
SC said in appropriate case, might treat application such as this as application for leave to bring direct appeal to SC against conviction – Would require application for extension of time and, ultimately, depend on establishing exceptional circumstances justifying direct appeal – Not appropriate case – Application dismissed.
Siemer v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 16 (20 March 2025)
Unsuccessful fee waiver application – Self-represented S applied for fee waiver saying not granted legal aid and wholly depended on New Zealand superannuation (NZ Super) to meet living expenses –
Deputy Registrar said application and supporting evidence did not satisfy him S wholly dependent on NZ Super for living expenses –
SC Judge said on evidence S had not proved case – Also considered public interest – Not here – Application dismissed.
Slavich v Wellington City Council [2025] NZSC 17 (24 March 2025)
Unsuccessful leave, recusal applications – Self-represented S convicted of fraud in 2006 – Appeal against conviction failed and denied leave to appeal to SC in 2009 – As CA later noted, then “made numerous applications and sought to bring prosecutions against the Crown solicitor and the Solicitor-General and others” – HC declared him vexatious litigant in 2013 – In 2019, applied on three occasions, unsuccessfully, for exercise of royal prerogative of mercy –
In 2022, S sought to file charging document in DC – On DC Judge rejecting charging document S sought judicial review in HC – Proceedings struck out as disclosing no cause of action and abuse of process –
S filed notice of appeal in CA – Sought filing fee waiver – Declined – Slew of further applications SC said need not discuss – On 30 November 2023, S given ten working days’ notice of CA intention to consider making order striking out appeal under rr 37(1) and 44A(1) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on account of default in paying filing fee and security for costs – Period expired – CA declined time extension and struck out appeal –
S sought leave to appeal to SC – Did so “obliquely”, saying CA should have adjudicated his contempt of court allegation – Said if contempt allegation upheld, his applications regarding security for costs and fee waiver would likely have been decided differently –
S also seeks by memorandum to have SC remove Crown counsel from acting, because of alleged conflict –
SC said Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain substance of proposed appeal – Not necessary in interests of justice for Court to hear and determine proposed appeal – Recusal application thereby beside point and dismissed – Applications dismissed.
Raine & Horne New Zealand Pty Ltd v Normans Road Real Estate Ltd [2025] NZCA 59
Unsuccessful application by Raine & Horne for leave to appeal decision declining to grant interim injunction – Both parties real estate companies - Mike Pero acquired by Raine & Horne - Mike Pero franchisee considered rebranding to Raine & Horne repudiation of franchise agreement - Franchisee cancelled agreement – Whether leave required -
Raine & Horne required to obtain leave to appeal under s56(3) Senior Courts Act 2016 (SCA) - Application for an interim injunction was an application for some relief ancillary to that claimed in a pleading, so fell within the definition of an “interlocutory application” under s4 SCA - An interim injunction was not dispositive and did not finally determine the proceeding - Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Smith v Land Information New Zealand [2025] NZCA 62
Unsuccessful application by S for an extension of time - S filed an appeal in CA in August 2023 - He applied for production order - Appeal deemed abandoned in August 2024 - Multiple extensions of time granted by Deputy Registrar - S applied for extension of time under r43 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 until determination of the production order application -
Extension of time should not be granted - Even if CA had jurisdiction to make a production order, one should not be made given the information sought would have been disclosed pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982 if it existed, and it would be highly likely to satisfy the fresh, credible and cogent test - Application for extension of time made over a year since the appeal was filed, and S would be unable to pursue the appeal if granted because he had never paid security for costs – LINZ had been prejudiced and incurred costs as a result of delay - Issues raised on appeal did not appear to have general significance- Substantive appeal did not have high level of merit – Application dismissed.
Legal Services Commissioner v Fawcett [2025] NZCA 63
Unsuccessful appeal by LSC against HC decision which found significant, complex, and time-consuming work undertaken by F’s legal team in preparing legal aid amendment applications and work related to invoicing beyond simple form-filling could fall within the definition of “legal aid service” under the Legal Services Act 2011 and so eligible for legal aid funding – F charged with murder - His legal aid provider applied for amendments to the grant, sought additional funding for various aspects of his defence -
Preparation and submission of invoices not capable of falling within the definition of legal services – That was an administrative task tied to operation and management of lawyer’s practice - Time spent by a provider in relation to amendment to grant applications was capable of falling within definition of legal services - Work undertaken by a legal aid provider in preparing applications for amendments to a grant of legal aid, and associated correspondence, could fall within the definition of “legal services” in the Act – F’s legal aid provider presented detailed and comprehensive information to the Commissioner to justify funding for specific defence strategies - That work involved legal advocacy, requiring legal skill, knowledge, and the application of law - Interactions were an were an essential and unavoidable part of representing F in the proceedings - Nothing in scheme of Act suggesting legal aid providers in HC cases expected to undertake extensive legal work in relation to amendment to grant applications for free – Appeal dismissed.
R v N (CA480/2024) [2025] NZCA 61
[B] v R [2025] NZCA 64
[J] v R [2025] NZCA 66
Roa v Wellington City Council [2025] NZHC 609 (21 March 2025) McHerron J
Unsuccessful judicial review application – Three “concerned Wellington ratepayers” sought judicial review of Council’s installation and maintenance of colourful paint strips commonly known as “rainbow crossing” on Dixon Street, Wellington, where it joined with Cuba Street pedestrian mall –
HC said crossing lawful in 2018 and not contrary to rules governing road markings and traffic control devices – Judge assessed crossing primarily based on rule in place at installation, rather than when amended, as no suggestion amendments were designed to be retrospective – Application dismissed.
Rukhadze v Recovery Partners GP Ltd [2025] UKSC10 (19 March 2025)
Unsuccessful appeal from CA – Appeal about ‘profit rule’ for fiduciaries – Fiduciaries owed duty of loyalty to beneficiary/principal (the person for whom they hold or manage property, e.g. company in director’s case) – One way loyalty duty manifested itself was requirement that, if fiduciary made profit from position as fiduciary, bound to account for profit to principal (unless principal gave fully informed consent) –
Recovery Partners (RP) company incorporated in British Virgin Islands (to which another company’s claims also assigned) and English LLP – R and other appellants (R) worked for RP, holding positions of responsibility (e.g. serving as directors) – Owed fiduciary duties to RP – Breaching duties, R diverted business opportunity away from RP and exploited it themselves –
Following HC claim R, in accord with profit rule, ordered to pay RP profits made from business opportunity – R appealed, unsuccessfully, to CA – Appealed to SC –
In SC R disputed liability to repay profits and, in any event, how profits calculated – Question before SC whether current test for requiring account of profits should be altered to introduce requirement fiduciary could not have made same profit in way that avoided breach of duty, i.e.: “Could the same profit have been made but for the breach of fiduciary duty” – R accepted introducing “but for” test meant departing from two 1967 House of Lords authorities –
SC unanimously dismissed appeal and declined to depart from previous decisions – 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.