New Zealand Supreme Court

Standards Committee, LCRO decisions

McGuire v Central Standards Committee 3 [2024] NZSC 104 (27 August 2024)

Unsuccessful leave application – McG sought leave to appeal CA dismissing appeal from HC dismissing application for judicial review of Standards Committees and Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) –

SC said application related to particular circumstances – Raised no point of general or public importance, or general commercial significance – No risk of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.

Freshwater quality, allocation, Māori rights and interests

Trustees of the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2024] NZSC 105 (27 August 2024)

Unsuccessful leave application – In October 2016 Council notified Proposed Plan Change 9 (PC9) to Water Quantity and Allocation chapter, Bay of Plenty Regional Natural Resources Plan – PC9 part of Council’s implementation plan for National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) 2014 – Both applicant groups filed appeals against PC9 in Environment Court, seeking stronger protections for Māori rights and interests in freshwater –

Appeals ongoing in late 2019, when Ministry for Environment released draft new NPS-FM to replace NPS-FM 2014 – In February 2020, council staff advised council to withdraw PC9, saying appeals related to PC9 would be poor use of resources when attention could be more productively refocused on preparing to implement new NPS-FM, which had stronger focus on Te Mana o Te Wai – Key issue in appeals –

On 25 February 2020, Council gave notice of resolution withdrawing PC9 under sch 1 cl 8D Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) – Appeals consequently treated as abandoned – Applicants sought unsuccessfully to challenge withdrawal in Environment Court, HC and CA – Application to bring “leapfrog” appeal to SC before going to CA also unsuccessful –

Crux of applicants’ submissions that Courts below erred in holding Council not required to consider Māori customary interests in freshwater when making withdrawal decision –

SC said leave criteria not met and not in interests of justice to hear and determine proposed appeal – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, EM bail, habeas corpus

Clark v Police [2024] NZSC 106 (28 August 2024)

Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented C on electronically monitored bail (EM bail) – Applied to HC for habeas corpus saying they are subject to EM bail, therefore unlawfully detained – HC declined application – C applied for leave to appeal directly to SC from HC decision – Also sought stay of proceedings in DC regarding other outstanding charges –

SC said proposed appeal would largely reprise matters dealt with in HC – Resolving matters C raised turned on specific facts – No question of general or public importance arose – Also, nothing C raised suggested proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant appeal to SC – No appearance of miscarriage of justice nor any exceptional circumstances warranting direct appeal – C had other, more appropriate, remedies he can pursue – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, panel recusal

Strange v Casey Farms Ltd [2024] NZSC 107 (30 August 2024)

Unsuccessful leave and recusal applications – Self-represented S applied for leave to appeal CA judgment declining to extend time for bringing appeal – Also applied for recusal of all three SC members –

SC first dealt with recusal application – Said grounds alleged corruption in handling of previous cases – Application “long and confusing” – Associated affidavit did nothing to clarify matters – Evident S considered state agencies, especially New Zealand Police | Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa, but also Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections, persecuting him apparently because he has information about historical corruption in government –

SC said so far as any potentially relevant ground identified, was that S attributed to panel members involvement in covering up past criminal behaviour in Parliament and ill-treatment S allegedly suffered in prison – Application dismissed.

SC said proposed appeal raised no question of general or public importance – No reason to think there may have been miscarriage of justice – To allow proceeding to continue would be to sanction abuse of court processes – Application dismissed.

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Application for a stay of enforcement, delay

Bei v B & Z Trades Company Ltd [2024] NZCA 404

Unsuccessful appeal against a HC decision dismissing a stay of enforcement of an order requiring B to vacate property owned by respondent company (B & Z) - B had filed his application on the day the order came into effect -

Application for a stay of enforcement declined - B had not provided any explanation for why he filed his application on the morning of the day vacant possession was to be given, more than three weeks after his application for a stay was declined by HC - Application should have been filed within, at most, a few days of the HC decision declining a stay, so B & Z could respond, and the Court would have sufficient time to consider the application on the merits after hearing from all parties - The delay in itself justifies declining the application - A party could not expect to benefit from filing a last-minute application which provided insufficient time for argument and consideration unless a convincing explanation is given - There was also nothing in the material filed in support of the application which suggested the Judge erred in declining to order a stay. 

Extension of time, delay

Maqbool v Tower Ltd [2024] NZCA 409

Unsuccessful application for an extension of time to appeal against two HC judgments – Applicants owned a property damaged by fire - Specialist fire investigator concluded dwelling was altered to enable two families to live in separate units - Insurer (Tower) avoided the policy on failure to disclose alterations - HC found alterations resulted in a material change of circumstances that potentially affected the level of risk Tower would be required to assume under the policy -

Applicants had not initially filed an appeal because they had no reason to believe the Judge had erred – While a delay of four months was significant, it was not inordinate - No public significance in the appeal, but high level of personal significance - Delay was significantly longer than with the costs judgment and had not been explained -  Applicants' conduct prior to filing an extension application suggests they did not intend to appeal the substantive decision but subsequently changed their mind - Grounds of appeal appeared weak - Overall interests of justice do not justify an extension.

Serious Fraud Office, unlawful exercises of power – login required

[R] v P [2024] NZCA 408