High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the Judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances (PDF, 211 KB). If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 834
Date of Judgment
17 April 2024
Summary
An application for interim orders to prevent a diplomatic agent of the Myanmar junta from entering New Zealand is declined because there is no evidence supporting the underlying challenge to the validity of their accreditation to New Zealand.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 32
Summary
Body Corporate/unit owners in a 40-storey tower block constructed between 2004-2006 claim remedial and consequential losses associated with 13 alleged fire, structural, extern and internal moisture defects. Whether the Body Corporate was entitled to sue under UTA 2010 and was owed duties of care versus duties owed to unit owners; effect of vendor assignments of claims; whether the Building Act 2004 altered the legal framework; the scope of the duty of care owed by a council and contractors; how the long-stop limitation provisions in s 393 Building Act 2004 operate. Whether each claimed defect existed; whether non-compliance with the Building Code; whether negligence causative of non-compliance with the Building Code. HELD: Claims established for breach of duty of care against Auckland Council in respect of some but not all claimed defects or part defects. Certain defects time-barred under the long-stop limitation provisions as filing of proceedings alleging negligence without particularising a specific defect did not halt limitation. Remedial consequences not determined as the plaintiffs’ proposed scope of work needs to be tailored to the liability findings but some guidance provided on disputed issues such as incidence of GST; loss of profit of hotel operator (dismissed as unclaimable head of loss and remediation scope of two standalone defects determined).
Media Release
- MR [2024] NZHC 32 (PDF, 327 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 623
Date of Judgment
21 March 2024
Summary
Sentence for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Offending involved single shot fired from a car after verbal exchange between the victim and offender. The victim was turning away from the car at the time, shooting took place in the afternoon when children were leaving the nearby school. Offender was 21 years old at the time of the offending with background of social deprivation and gang affiliation. Key issue to be decided was whether offender should serve sentence of life imprisonment or a fixed term of imprisonment.
HELD: Life imprisonment with MPI of 10 years. Life sentence would not be manifestly unjust. Difference between MPI for determinate sentence and indeterminate sentence was not grossly disparate having regard to the seriousness of the offending and trauma. Youth and a combination of other factors can make life imprisonment manifestly unjust but in this case a sentence of life imprisonment is not unjust because of the use of a firearm in a residential location close to a school and at a time when children are likely to be present.
HELD: Life imprisonment with MPI of 10 years. Life sentence would not be manifestly unjust. Difference between MPI for determinate sentence and indeterminate sentence was not grossly disparate having regard to the seriousness of the offending and trauma. Youth and a combination of other factors can make life imprisonment manifestly unjust but in this case a sentence of life imprisonment is not unjust because of the use of a firearm in a residential location close to a school and at a time when children are likely to be present.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 598
Date of Judgment
19 March 2024
Summary
Sentencing for seven charges including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and strangulation following trial by jury.
Preventive detention appropriate for strangulation and sexual violation. Criminal history demonstrates an entrenched pattern of behaviour that imprisonment has not corrected. Court satisfied that defendant likely to commit serious offences, including a qualifying sexual or violent offence following release from even a lengthy finite sentence. Defendant shows lack of insight and unwillingness to accept the most serious of the offending. Finite sentence would not give an incentive to rehabilitate. Preventive detention necessary to provide a safety net to protect the community. Minimum period of six years' imprisonment appropriate.
Sentences for other charges to be served concurrently: assault with intent to injure (three years), assault with a weapon (x 3, two years), injuring with intent to injure (x 2, two years).
Preventive detention appropriate for strangulation and sexual violation. Criminal history demonstrates an entrenched pattern of behaviour that imprisonment has not corrected. Court satisfied that defendant likely to commit serious offences, including a qualifying sexual or violent offence following release from even a lengthy finite sentence. Defendant shows lack of insight and unwillingness to accept the most serious of the offending. Finite sentence would not give an incentive to rehabilitate. Preventive detention necessary to provide a safety net to protect the community. Minimum period of six years' imprisonment appropriate.
Sentences for other charges to be served concurrently: assault with intent to injure (three years), assault with a weapon (x 3, two years), injuring with intent to injure (x 2, two years).
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 576
Date of Judgment
18 March 2024
Summary
Sentencing notes for attempted murder (Crimes Act 1961, s 173) by defendant who had just turned 15 at the time following a Judge alone trial in the Youth Court (Police v MM [2022] NZYC 209).
Held, three aggravating factors were present: premeditation, serious injuries and use of a weapon (R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174). No mitigating factors.
Starting point of seven years' imprisonment adopted in light of offending falling in band two of R v Taueki more serious than low end of band of 5 years but the offending less serious than comparator cases (R v McRae [2017] NZHC 1881; R v Taipari [2014] NZHC 577; with similarities to Police v EGO DC Wanganui CRl-2005-283-75, 15 May 2006).
30 per cent discount applied for defendant's youth (Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531; and R v Ormsby-Turner [2023] NZCA 601). 30 per cent discount applied for rehabilitative prospects and progress.
Eight month discount applied for time spent on electronically monitored bail. Sentence of imprisonment converted to maximum available period of home detention (Sentencing Act 2002, s 80A(3)).
End sentence of 12 months' home detention imposed.
Application for final name suppression adjourned.
Held, three aggravating factors were present: premeditation, serious injuries and use of a weapon (R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174). No mitigating factors.
Starting point of seven years' imprisonment adopted in light of offending falling in band two of R v Taueki more serious than low end of band of 5 years but the offending less serious than comparator cases (R v McRae [2017] NZHC 1881; R v Taipari [2014] NZHC 577; with similarities to Police v EGO DC Wanganui CRl-2005-283-75, 15 May 2006).
30 per cent discount applied for defendant's youth (Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531; and R v Ormsby-Turner [2023] NZCA 601). 30 per cent discount applied for rehabilitative prospects and progress.
Eight month discount applied for time spent on electronically monitored bail. Sentence of imprisonment converted to maximum available period of home detention (Sentencing Act 2002, s 80A(3)).
End sentence of 12 months' home detention imposed.
Application for final name suppression adjourned.
Case number
[2023] NZHC 2533
Date of Judgment
08 March 2024
Summary
An application for an interim injunction to prevent publication of a news story on NewsHub TV3 is dismissed because the applicants have not shown that defamation, for which there is no reasonable possibility of a legal defence, is likely to be published.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 419
Date of Judgment
01 March 2024
Summary
The Court makes orders for the distribution of the trust assets of Cryptopia Ltd, the cryptocurrency company in liquidation, in accordance with the liquidators' application.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 376
Date of Judgment
29 February 2024
Summary
Sentence for anal rape of 13 year old boy. Previously sentenced to preventive detention in 2018, but overturned on appeal. Again sentenced to preventive detention.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 374
Date of Judgment
29 February 2024
Summary
Murder - Life imprisonment with minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The Court found s 104(1 )(c) of the Sentencing Act was engaged as the defendant went to the victim's property with the intent to assault the victim. Under s 103 an MPI for the murder alone of 13½ years was required. An uplift of four years in the MPI for the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice was appropriate. Further uplifts in total of six months for separate offending against the defendant's former partner and the fact the murder occurred while on bail. MPI of 17 years or more was not manifestly unjust. Reduction in the resultant MPI of 18 years by 12 months to take account of personal factors.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 332
Date of Judgment
27 February 2024
Summary
Defendant appeared for sentence having pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the death of her young daughter.
Starting point of four years' imprisonment adopted to recognise the distinctive circumstances moderating the defendant's culpability as well as the serious consequences of her actions.
Personal mitigating features: 10 per cent for youth as defendant was 21 years old; 5 per cent for guilty plea few days prior to trial (but not more due to unsuccessful application to vacate guilty plea); 10 per cent for undergoing examination as Crown witness at trial of ex-partner; and 25 per cent encompassing causative factors from family and cultural background, personal history (including lack of prior convictions and state of mental health), the distinctive impact of sentence of imprisonment on defendant and 14-month old child, capacity for rehabilitation and the considerable steps taken so far towards rehabilitation.
Sentence: 12 months' home detention.
Starting point of four years' imprisonment adopted to recognise the distinctive circumstances moderating the defendant's culpability as well as the serious consequences of her actions.
Personal mitigating features: 10 per cent for youth as defendant was 21 years old; 5 per cent for guilty plea few days prior to trial (but not more due to unsuccessful application to vacate guilty plea); 10 per cent for undergoing examination as Crown witness at trial of ex-partner; and 25 per cent encompassing causative factors from family and cultural background, personal history (including lack of prior convictions and state of mental health), the distinctive impact of sentence of imprisonment on defendant and 14-month old child, capacity for rehabilitation and the considerable steps taken so far towards rehabilitation.
Sentence: 12 months' home detention.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 309
Date of Judgment
26 February 2024
Summary
Applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 for customary marine title (CMT) and for protected customary rights (PCRs) in relation to the South Wairarapa coast, from Tūrakirae to the southern bank of the Whareama River. Applicants reached an agreement which acknowledged their shared whakapapa and interlinked historical and current customary interests in the application area and sought CMTs on a shared exclusivity basis.
Held, statutory tests for CMTs satisfied (applying Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board [2023] NZCA 504). CMTs granted on a joint basis as between hapū in each of four coastal rohe in the application area.
Held, PCRs granted in respect of a number of customary activities, including gathering of stones and driftwood and harvesting of harakeke. PCR granted to several applicants for the general right of kaitiakitanga over the application area for the purposes of conservation measures and practices.
Held, statutory tests for CMTs satisfied (applying Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board [2023] NZCA 504). CMTs granted on a joint basis as between hapū in each of four coastal rohe in the application area.
Held, PCRs granted in respect of a number of customary activities, including gathering of stones and driftwood and harvesting of harakeke. PCR granted to several applicants for the general right of kaitiakitanga over the application area for the purposes of conservation measures and practices.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 217
Date of Judgment
19 February 2024
Summary
Feed Families Not Pokies seeks a declaration as to whether the Gambling Act 2003, as amended in 2013, allows a venue licence to benefit from a minor change in location on approval by the Secretary for Internal Affairs. The High Court declares that it does not. A change in the location of a venue will only apply if the territorial authority so consents in accordance with its relocation policy. That does not affect the validity of licences amended by the Secretary since 2013.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 197
Date of Judgment
16 February 2024
Summary
Sentencing following jury trial verdicts of guilty and earlier pleas of guilty to lesser charges as follows: in relation to S - manslaughter by assault, assault with intent to injure x 3 and common assault x 3; and in relation to G - manslaughter by dangerous driving, failing to stop to ascertain injury and common assault. The victim, Connor Boyd, was grabbed and held by S and G from inside a vehicle which drove off with the victim running alongside; the victim managed to jump onto the running board of the vehicle but lost his footing and fell off the running board of the vehicle which then ran over his head and body. The victim died as a result of his injuries. Starting point for G: 4 ½ years' imprisonment, with discounts for mitigating factors of youth, previous good character and rehabilitative prospects of 35% plus 5% for remorse and two months for time spent on bail. Starting point for S: 3 years' imprisonment for offending against Mr Boyd, uplift of nine months for offending against 0, with discounts for mitigating factors of youth, previous good character, rehabilitative prospects and psychological needs of 40% and one month for time spent on bail.
RESULT: The end sentence for G is: on the lead charge of manslaughter, 2 ½ years' imprisonment, on the assault charge, 3 months' imprisonment, on the failing to stop charge, 6 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 2 years from the date of release - sentences to be served concurrently. The end sentence for S is: on the lead charge of manslaughter 2 years 2 months' imprisonment, on the assault with intent to injure charges, 9 months' imprisonment, on the common assault charges, 3 months' imprisonment - sentences to be served concurrently.
RESULT: The end sentence for G is: on the lead charge of manslaughter, 2 ½ years' imprisonment, on the assault charge, 3 months' imprisonment, on the failing to stop charge, 6 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 2 years from the date of release - sentences to be served concurrently. The end sentence for S is: on the lead charge of manslaughter 2 years 2 months' imprisonment, on the assault with intent to injure charges, 9 months' imprisonment, on the common assault charges, 3 months' imprisonment - sentences to be served concurrently.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 189
Date of Judgment
16 February 2024
Summary
Judgment from the first referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission on the grounds a mistake in the appellant's age ( 17 vs 15) saw him convicted of offences in the District Court and sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment, an outcome prohibited by legislation. The appellant was a refugee from a war-torn country.
The Court accepted the appellant's relatives' evidence of his birthdate, which was supported by his Certificates ofldentity and New Zealand Citizenship.
If in the Youth Court, the appellant would not have been convicted but likely admonished and ordered to reside in a welfare institution, for 3 months at most.
The convictions were imposed and sentence served over 20 years ago. The convictions were set aside. It was too late to substitute any other order that could have been made in the Youth Court. The sentence was quashed.
The Court accepted the appellant's relatives' evidence of his birthdate, which was supported by his Certificates ofldentity and New Zealand Citizenship.
If in the Youth Court, the appellant would not have been convicted but likely admonished and ordered to reside in a welfare institution, for 3 months at most.
The convictions were imposed and sentence served over 20 years ago. The convictions were set aside. It was too late to substitute any other order that could have been made in the Youth Court. The sentence was quashed.
Media Release
- MR [2024] NZHC 189 (PDF, 195 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 182
Date of Judgment
15 February 2024
Summary
Sentence for murder and two charges of wounding with intent to cause GBH. Defendant accepted a sentence indication that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust in his case, and which indicated that an end sentence of 16 years' imprisonment with an MPI of 8 years was appropriate in light of cultural and other reports available. Court considered that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust weighing the circumstances of the defendant's offending and his age, prospects of rehabilitation and profound social and cultural deprivation. In determining an appropriate end sentence, the Court adopted a starting point of 22 years imprisonment, which it said should be discounted by 20 per cent for the defendant's guilty plea, 25 per cent to reflect his age and rehabilitative prospects, and 15 per cent for the matters raised in his cultural report. However, given that would have led to a finite end sentence of eight years and 10 months, the Court considered it necessary to uplift that sentence to 15 years imprisonment with an MPI of 8 years to reflect the defendant's conviction for murder.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 118
Date of Judgment
08 February 2024
Summary
Defendant appeared for sentencing having been found guilty at trial of murder. Aggravating factors were the use of a weapon, unlawful possession of the firearm, the lack of provocation, and the victim being unarmed. Starting minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months' imprisonment to reflect low level of pre-meditation and violence, but intentional killing. Taking into account an uplift for drug related offending, and a reduction for defendant's remorse, and potental for rehabilitation, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years and eight months' imprisonment.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 114
Date of Judgment
08 February 2024
Summary
Sentencing notes. Manslaughter under s 160(2)(d) causing death by fear of violence; and burglary. Four years, 10 months for both.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 63
Date of Judgment
02 February 2024
Summary
Judicial review of Hauraki District Council's (HDC) decision to grant a licence to occupy road reserve in Wharekirauponga Forest to Oceana Gold Ltd, for purpose of constructing mining infrastructure. Applicant Ours Not Mines an environmental interest group. Grounds of review:
(a) HDC has no power to grant a licence to occupy under Local Government Act 1974 (LGA74);
(b) proposed works block road constituting a public nuisance and HOC not entitled to authorise public nuisance;
(c) licence confers exclusive possession amounting to a lease and HOC has no power to grant lease over road;
(d) power not exercised for intended purpose therefore improper purpose.
HELD: application declined. HDC's power to grant licence to occupy arises from its ownership of the road reserve (s 316 LGA74). It may not authorise a nuisance. However, works do not appreciably interfere with public right to pass and repass road because of existing lack of use and difficulty of accessing road (dense bush indistinguishable from surrounding area). HOC has no power to grant lease but the licence does not confer exclusive possession because it retains HDC's and public right to pass over land. No improper purpose because power derived from landowner status not LGA74.
Obiter, that substantive issues relating to use of road for mining activities better assessed in resource consent process under Resource Management Act 1991.
(a) HDC has no power to grant a licence to occupy under Local Government Act 1974 (LGA74);
(b) proposed works block road constituting a public nuisance and HOC not entitled to authorise public nuisance;
(c) licence confers exclusive possession amounting to a lease and HOC has no power to grant lease over road;
(d) power not exercised for intended purpose therefore improper purpose.
HELD: application declined. HDC's power to grant licence to occupy arises from its ownership of the road reserve (s 316 LGA74). It may not authorise a nuisance. However, works do not appreciably interfere with public right to pass and repass road because of existing lack of use and difficulty of accessing road (dense bush indistinguishable from surrounding area). HOC has no power to grant lease but the licence does not confer exclusive possession because it retains HDC's and public right to pass over land. No improper purpose because power derived from landowner status not LGA74.
Obiter, that substantive issues relating to use of road for mining activities better assessed in resource consent process under Resource Management Act 1991.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 36
Date of Judgment
01 February 2024
Summary
Appeal against decision of the Land Valuation Tribunal concerning the assessment of compensation for land taken and injurious affection in relation to a compulsorily acquisition for the Kāpiti Coast Mackay’s to Peka Peka Expressway. This is the only judicial determination of compensation in relation to land taken for this Expressway. The landowners argued on appeal that the Tribunal made several errors, including failing to take into account relevant evidence concerning valuation and injurious affection, and misdirecting itself as to the methodology to be adopted for the market valuation of the land taken.
HELD: Appeal allowed but the compensation assessment not significantly varied. The Tribunal took an unconventional approach and failed to give sufficient reasons for part of its decision. Nevertheless, it adopted the appropriate methodology for assessing compensation for the land taken in terms of the requirements in s 62(1)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981, and reached the correct outcome based on the evidence. Furthermore, no error was made in the methodology adopted to assess the compensation for injurious affection. A dispute concerning fencing and relocation had been dealt with by agreement between the parties and outside the matters under appeal. The value of the land taken was assessed at $38,000 and the injurious affection compensation was assessed at $33,000. Thus, the overall compensation was increased by $1,000 from the Tribunal’s initial determination in order to correct a mathematical error.
This decision highlights the principles to be considered in assessing compensation for the taking of land, including the concept of a willing seller and willing buyer operating within an imaginary market, the economic equivalence of compensation and loss, and liberality in favour of the dispossessed owner in determining compensation where land is compulsorily acquired. It also notes that the valuation should reflect any potentiality of the property affected by the land take including possible subdivision taking into account adjustments to value for the costs of subdivision, and the valuer should cross-check the valuation using various methodologies.
HELD: Appeal allowed but the compensation assessment not significantly varied. The Tribunal took an unconventional approach and failed to give sufficient reasons for part of its decision. Nevertheless, it adopted the appropriate methodology for assessing compensation for the land taken in terms of the requirements in s 62(1)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981, and reached the correct outcome based on the evidence. Furthermore, no error was made in the methodology adopted to assess the compensation for injurious affection. A dispute concerning fencing and relocation had been dealt with by agreement between the parties and outside the matters under appeal. The value of the land taken was assessed at $38,000 and the injurious affection compensation was assessed at $33,000. Thus, the overall compensation was increased by $1,000 from the Tribunal’s initial determination in order to correct a mathematical error.
This decision highlights the principles to be considered in assessing compensation for the taking of land, including the concept of a willing seller and willing buyer operating within an imaginary market, the economic equivalence of compensation and loss, and liberality in favour of the dispossessed owner in determining compensation where land is compulsorily acquired. It also notes that the valuation should reflect any potentiality of the property affected by the land take including possible subdivision taking into account adjustments to value for the costs of subdivision, and the valuer should cross-check the valuation using various methodologies.