New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Publication restriction

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2023

JK v KL - Costs [2023] NZHC 37

Citation

[2023] NZHC 37
Court

High Court

The court upheld the earlier approach: the grandparents must pay the child's litigation guardian $10,283 and must pay the mother's verified disbursements (filing fees of $540 and reasonable verified cost of producing the common bundle); the earlier costs order against the mother is not reversed and indemnity costs are refused because the grandparents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of 'distinctly bad behaviour'.
17 Dec 2021

R v SINGH [2021] NZHC 3555

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3555
Court

High Court

Given the non‑premeditated but serious outcome caused by a push in the context of sustained hostility, the appropriate starting point was two years nine months; a guilty plea discount of just over 20% was allowed at indication (reducing to two years two months) and, at sentencing, a further one month was deducted for remorse, yielding a final sentence of two years one month imprisonment; disputed background material was not credited without corroboration and home detention was refused due to seriousness and the need for deterrence and denunciation.
4 Nov 2020

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ECOMI TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD [2020] NZHC 2883

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2883
Court

High Court

The freezing and ancillary orders were continued until further order because the applicant still demonstrated a good arguable case, there are assets within the Court's reach including property and cryptocurrency, and there remains a sufficient risk of dissipation; the respondents' non-disclosure and third-party-asset allegations did not, on the material before the Court, undermine the justification for continuation.
20 Mar 2020

SINCLAIR v OLIVER [2020] NZHC 592

Citation

[2020] NZHC 592
Court

High Court

Judge Walsh's factual findings that the mother, supported by her father, had psychologically undermined the child's relationship with her father and risked ongoing psychological harm justified maintaining day‑to‑day care with the father and requiring supervised contact; there was no material change of circumstances sufficient to overturn those findings or remit the matter to Family Court, and no basis to find bias or predetermination; appeals dismissed.
31 May 2019

YONKWA-DINGOM v R [2019] NZCA 194

Citation

[2019] NZCA 194
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there is reasonable evidence of a conspiracy (s 22A(a)) and reasonable evidence that the appellant was a member of that conspiracy (s 22A(b)); issues under s 22A(c) as to whether particular statements were in furtherance were properly reserved for the trial judge.
25 Aug 2017

AVISON v R [2017] NZCA

Citation

openlaw-49d0caf1_cf9c_493d_9f87_6c1e87199c2f.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Forging and using false official records to conceal offending is a distinctive and unusual act that establishes a specific propensity relevant to whether the defendant altered his logbook to support an alibi; the probative value of the 2005 convictions outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice given the distinctiveness of the conduct and explanations for the temporal gap (periods of imprisonment and activation of propensity by need).
21 Jul 2017

MCMAHON v R [2017] NZCA 311

Citation

[2017] NZCA 311
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the several facts taken together—historic methamphetamine convictions and NIA notations linking the appellant to clan‑lab activity, the passenger's drug history, the presence and condition of a tourniquet and the unconvincing explanation—provided reasonable grounds under s20 to search the vehicle without a warrant; the search was lawful, the evidence admissible, leave to appeal was properly granted and the appeal dismissed.
21 Dec 2016

WANG & WEI v R [2016] NZCA 632

Citation

[2016] NZCA 632
Court

Court of Appeal

For Wang the joint representation without informed consent and the failure by counsel to take separate instructions (heightened by use of co-accused as interpreter and prosecutorial evidence focused on Wei) created a real risk the verdict was unsafe; conviction set aside and retrial ordered. For Wei there was no real risk counsel was inhibited or that advice not to testify was defective; his conviction and sentence were upheld and sentencing was within available range given intent and evidence of involvement.
20 Apr 2016

R v MCISAAC [2016] NZHC 743

Citation

[2016] NZHC 743
Court

High Court

On the unchallenged evidence (confession, DNA, fingerprints, circumstantial linking of stolen items and presence at scene) the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the physical acts constituting the offences; therefore the s9 threshold is met for murder, burglary and possession and the s14 inquiry must proceed.
16 Dec 2015

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 3250

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3250
Court

High Court

Application for examination under r7.48 dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the defendant was a party in default personally responsible for non-payment or that examination would be an effective remedy; instead the Court ordered continued focused documentary and interlocutory inquiry (including plaintiff-formulated questions for Court approval) and granted an interim publication restriction pending confidentiality/redaction applications.