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
[2025] NZHC 609
Date of Judgment
21 March 2025
Summary
The High Court concluded the rainbow crossing at the junction of Dixon Street and Cuba Mall was lawful in 2018 and is not contrary to the rules governing road markings and traffic control devices. McHerron J assessed the crossing primarily by reference to the rule in place at installation, rather than when amended, as there was no suggestion the amendments were designed to be retrospective.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 609 (PDF, 146 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 343
Date of Judgment
28 February 2025
Summary
First defendant convicted of murder under s 172 of the Crimes Act 1961 and of conspiring to pervert the court of justice under s 116 of the Crimes Act (x2). The Court sentenced the first defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11.5 years for murder, and 12 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Second defendant convicted of wilfully perverting the course of justice under s 117(e) and conspiring to pervert the course of justice under s 116 of the Crimes Act (x2). The Court sentenced the second defendant to six months' home detention.
Third defendant convicted of wilfully perverting the course of justice under s 117(e) of the Crimes Act (x3). The Court sentenced the third defendant to 10 months' home detention.
Second defendant convicted of wilfully perverting the course of justice under s 117(e) and conspiring to pervert the course of justice under s 116 of the Crimes Act (x2). The Court sentenced the second defendant to six months' home detention.
Third defendant convicted of wilfully perverting the course of justice under s 117(e) of the Crimes Act (x3). The Court sentenced the third defendant to 10 months' home detention.
Case number
[2025] NZHC 288
Date of Judgment
27 February 2025
Summary
Successful appeal against conviction under s 48 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for a breach of s 37. Appellant granted licences permitting certain companies to conduct walking tours on Whakaari White Island, an active volcano that is currently leases. Following an eruption on the Island in 2019, the appellant was convicted of failing to comply with a duty under s 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act exposing individuals to a risk of death or serious injury/illness. Court found that as a matter of law, the appellant did not manage or control the workplace in which walking tours took place on the Island and therefore did not have a duty under s 37. Court further found that even if the appellant had such a duty, it did not breach that duty as it was not reasonably practicable for it to have undertaken its own risk assessment, or to have carried out the further steps which would have allegedly been identified by such a risk assessment, given the nature of its business and the reasonable reliance it placed on Government agencies and other stakeholders that monitored Whakaari. Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 288 (PDF, 159 KB)
Case number
[2025] NZHC 295
Date of Judgment
26 February 2025
Summary
Proceeding by Financial Markets Authority (FMA) against Mr Carden Mulholland alleging involvement in five contraventions of fair dealing and continuous disclosure provisions of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) by CBL Corporation Limited (CBLC). Mr Mulholland was the chief financial officer of the CBL Group. The alleged fair dealing contravention is a misrepresentation to investors hat CBLC's operating profit for the half-year to June 2017 had been materially reduced because its subsidiary (CBLI) had made a "oneoff' increase to the amount it was reserving for future claims, in breach of FMCA ss 19, 22 and/or 23. The alleged continuous disclosure contraventions are a failure to disclose to the market from 24 August 2017 that approximately $35m of premium receivables due to CBLI were over a year past due, and their solvency impact; a failure to disclose to the market on/shortly after 11 October 2017 that CBLI signed a term sheet to sell the aged receivables to Castlerock Receivables Management Ltd; a failure to disclose to the market
on/shortly after 13 January 2018 that the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) had directed CBLC's subsidiary (CBLIE) to apply a capital add-on essentially requiring it to hold additional cash reserves of €31.5m; and a failure to disclose to the market from 25 January 2018 until 5 February 2018 that CBLl's reserves needed strengthening by approximately $100m; all in breach of FMCA s 270 and the NZX Listing Rules cl 10.1. In the alternative to the continuous disclosure contraventions, the FMA alleges a failure to disclose to the market at least by the end of January 2018 the cumulative material effect of the information concerning receivables, CBI directions and conditions, and reserving, in breach of FMCA s 270 and Listing Rules cl 10.1. HELD: Accessory liability under s 533(1)(c) FMCA requires that the alleged accessory: (a) had actual knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the contravention; and (b) intentionally participated by acts or omissions that had a practical connection with the contravention. RESULT: The FMA's second cause of action against Mr Mulholland (involvement in "one-off' representation) is not made out. The tenth cause of action (involvement in non-disclosure of aged receivables) is made out. The twelfth cause of action (involvement in non-disclosure of Castlerock transaction) is not made out - primary contravention by CBLC not established. The twenty-second cause of action (involvement in non-disclosure of CBI direction) is made out. The eighth cause of action (involvement in late disclosure of approximately $1 00m reserve strengthening) is made out. Declarations of contravention made in relation to the eighth, tenth and twenty-second causes of action. Penalty hearing to follow.
on/shortly after 13 January 2018 that the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) had directed CBLC's subsidiary (CBLIE) to apply a capital add-on essentially requiring it to hold additional cash reserves of €31.5m; and a failure to disclose to the market from 25 January 2018 until 5 February 2018 that CBLl's reserves needed strengthening by approximately $100m; all in breach of FMCA s 270 and the NZX Listing Rules cl 10.1. In the alternative to the continuous disclosure contraventions, the FMA alleges a failure to disclose to the market at least by the end of January 2018 the cumulative material effect of the information concerning receivables, CBI directions and conditions, and reserving, in breach of FMCA s 270 and Listing Rules cl 10.1. HELD: Accessory liability under s 533(1)(c) FMCA requires that the alleged accessory: (a) had actual knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the contravention; and (b) intentionally participated by acts or omissions that had a practical connection with the contravention. RESULT: The FMA's second cause of action against Mr Mulholland (involvement in "one-off' representation) is not made out. The tenth cause of action (involvement in non-disclosure of aged receivables) is made out. The twelfth cause of action (involvement in non-disclosure of Castlerock transaction) is not made out - primary contravention by CBLC not established. The twenty-second cause of action (involvement in non-disclosure of CBI direction) is made out. The eighth cause of action (involvement in late disclosure of approximately $1 00m reserve strengthening) is made out. Declarations of contravention made in relation to the eighth, tenth and twenty-second causes of action. Penalty hearing to follow.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 228
Date of Judgment
19 February 2025
Summary
Sentencing for drug driving causing death to one victim and serious injury to another and other driving and drug offences; several aggravating factors engaged; defendant was driving under the influence of methamphetamine, cannabis and diazepam; defendant was engaged in a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving; driving was aggressive and highly dangerous; defendant was driving while distracted, sending texts and engaging in a 21 minute video call; these texts recorded he had previously crashed twice that morning and effectively bragging; defendant had little sleep the night before; defendant did not hold a licence and the car was not registered; driving killed one victim, being the passenger of the other vehicle, severely injured the driver and killed their pet dog.
HELD: starting point of six years' imprisonment for lead offence of drug driving causing death; five per cent uplift for previous driving convictions including those in Australia; 15 per cent discount for guilty plea; 12.5 per cent discount for background factors and rehabilitative potential; no discount for remorse or parental incarceration; end sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment; disqualified for five years; no reparation order.
HELD: starting point of six years' imprisonment for lead offence of drug driving causing death; five per cent uplift for previous driving convictions including those in Australia; 15 per cent discount for guilty plea; 12.5 per cent discount for background factors and rehabilitative potential; no discount for remorse or parental incarceration; end sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment; disqualified for five years; no reparation order.
Case number
[2025] NZHC 190
Date of Judgment
17 February 2025
Summary
High Court releases judicial review decision in Aitken v Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Anor.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 190 (PDF, 121 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 176
Date of Judgment
14 February 2025
Summary
Sentencing - the offender was charged with murder and found guilty by the jury on a charge of manslaughter - the offending occurred after the offender used a knife to fend off an attack by the victim - this resulted in the victim receiving a fatal stab wound to the neck - starting point of seven years imprisonment reduced to six years to reflect the provocative conduct of the victim- discount of 20 per cent to reflect an offer to plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter - global discount of 30 per cent to reflect other mitigating factors including youth (the offender was 16 years of age at the time of the offending), remorse, rehabilitative prospects and factors identified in reports produced at sentencing - end sentence of three years imprisonment.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 160
Date of Judgment
13 February 2025
Summary
Successful appeal against conviction for assault.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 50
Date of Judgment
04 February 2025
Summary
Application for judicial review relating to the Real Estate Agent Authority's decision in 2022 to mandate completion of a course, Te Kakano, as part of 2023 continuing education requirements for real estate licensees. Mrs Dickson claimed that the practice rules under which the Authority and the Associate Minister of Justice prescribed continuing education requirements are invalid under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, that the Authority's decision to mandate Te Kakano was invalid, and that the decision of the Registrar of the registry of licensees to refuse to grant her an exemption from completing the course was invalid because he had applied a blanket "no- exemptions" policy. Application dismissed.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 50 (PDF, 192 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 30
Date of Judgment
28 January 2025
Summary
Ms Taylor seeks an award of exemplary damages against the Royal New Zealand Airforce (RNZAF). Her claim arises out of the sexual abuse and false imprisonment she suffered at the hands of Mr Roper when they were both in the RNZAF in the 1980s. The claim is the last part of a proceeding which Ms Taylor began in 2016. The first High Court judgment was delivered in 2018. Following successive appeals, the Supreme Court confirmed that Ms Taylor's claim for compensation is barred by the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Exemplary damages are in a different category to those routinely sought in a civil claim. Rather than compensating for harm suffered, they are aimed at punishing a wrongdoer for outrageous conduct and deterring the wrongdoer and others from acting in the same way. Words like "contumelious", "high-handed", "oppressive" and "wilful" are used to describe the sort of conduct which attracts an award of exemplary damages.
Awards for exemplary damages in cases of negligence will only be made where the conduct is intentional, or where the defendant has a conscious appreciation of the risk of causing harm and makes a deliberate decision to run that risk. It is a very high threshold, and awards are rare. Exemplary damages are not a surrogate for compensatory damages and must not be allowed to subvert the accident compensation scheme.
Ms Taylor's claim is that the RNZAF is either vicariously or directly liable for the actions of Mr Roper. She also claims that the RNZAF owed her a duty of care as an employer to protect her from Mr Roper. Ms Taylor's claim is not for systemic failures in the way the RNZAF dealt with sexual abuse and misconduct in the 1980s.
To prove her claim, Ms Taylor seeks to adduce evidence in addition to that called at the 2018 trial. The evidence sought to be adduced is of a report commissioned by the Chief of the RNZAF in 2016 following Mr Roper's convictions for sexual offending (the Joychild report). That application is opposed by the RNZAF.
Is the Joychild report admissible? No.
Adducing the Joychild report would add very little to the evidence already heard by the Court. That is because many of those interviewed by Ms Joychild gave evidence at trial. Moreover, the delay in seeking to adduce the report (which was available prior to trial) was not adequately explained. If the report was to be adduced at this late stage, witnesses who gave evidence in 2018 would have to be recalled, risking a re-running of the 2018 trial for very little gain. There were no exceptional circumstances, and it was not in the interests of justice, that the Joychild report be adduced.
Should exemplary damages be awarded? No.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that exemplary damages are generally unavailable for vicarious liability. The Court of Appeal has also confirmed that s 6 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 means the Crown cannot be sued directly in tort. That may seem unfair, but it is for Parliament to change the law if it sees fit.
The claim that the RNZAF owed a duty of care as an employer (or something similar) is a novel legal claim. Even if such a duty could be established, the evidence falls short of the high threshold for exemplary damages to be awarded in cases of negligence. There is no evidence that the RNZAF consciously appreciated the risks that Mr Roper posed to Ms Taylor and decided to deliberately run those risks. Nor is there any evidence of outrageous, high-handed, malicious, or wilful conduct which would attract an award of exemplary damages for negligence. It was Mr Roper who was the flagrant wrongdoer; not the RNZAF. The fact that processes have been changed in the last 30 years means that an award of exemplary damages would not serve a deterrent purpose either.
The Court has every sympathy for Ms Taylor and what she endured at the hands of Mr Roper in the 1980s. However, an award of exemplary damages against the RNZAF cannot be justified on the law and the evidence called at trial. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Exemplary damages are in a different category to those routinely sought in a civil claim. Rather than compensating for harm suffered, they are aimed at punishing a wrongdoer for outrageous conduct and deterring the wrongdoer and others from acting in the same way. Words like "contumelious", "high-handed", "oppressive" and "wilful" are used to describe the sort of conduct which attracts an award of exemplary damages.
Awards for exemplary damages in cases of negligence will only be made where the conduct is intentional, or where the defendant has a conscious appreciation of the risk of causing harm and makes a deliberate decision to run that risk. It is a very high threshold, and awards are rare. Exemplary damages are not a surrogate for compensatory damages and must not be allowed to subvert the accident compensation scheme.
Ms Taylor's claim is that the RNZAF is either vicariously or directly liable for the actions of Mr Roper. She also claims that the RNZAF owed her a duty of care as an employer to protect her from Mr Roper. Ms Taylor's claim is not for systemic failures in the way the RNZAF dealt with sexual abuse and misconduct in the 1980s.
To prove her claim, Ms Taylor seeks to adduce evidence in addition to that called at the 2018 trial. The evidence sought to be adduced is of a report commissioned by the Chief of the RNZAF in 2016 following Mr Roper's convictions for sexual offending (the Joychild report). That application is opposed by the RNZAF.
Is the Joychild report admissible? No.
Adducing the Joychild report would add very little to the evidence already heard by the Court. That is because many of those interviewed by Ms Joychild gave evidence at trial. Moreover, the delay in seeking to adduce the report (which was available prior to trial) was not adequately explained. If the report was to be adduced at this late stage, witnesses who gave evidence in 2018 would have to be recalled, risking a re-running of the 2018 trial for very little gain. There were no exceptional circumstances, and it was not in the interests of justice, that the Joychild report be adduced.
Should exemplary damages be awarded? No.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that exemplary damages are generally unavailable for vicarious liability. The Court of Appeal has also confirmed that s 6 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 means the Crown cannot be sued directly in tort. That may seem unfair, but it is for Parliament to change the law if it sees fit.
The claim that the RNZAF owed a duty of care as an employer (or something similar) is a novel legal claim. Even if such a duty could be established, the evidence falls short of the high threshold for exemplary damages to be awarded in cases of negligence. There is no evidence that the RNZAF consciously appreciated the risks that Mr Roper posed to Ms Taylor and decided to deliberately run those risks. Nor is there any evidence of outrageous, high-handed, malicious, or wilful conduct which would attract an award of exemplary damages for negligence. It was Mr Roper who was the flagrant wrongdoer; not the RNZAF. The fact that processes have been changed in the last 30 years means that an award of exemplary damages would not serve a deterrent purpose either.
The Court has every sympathy for Ms Taylor and what she endured at the hands of Mr Roper in the 1980s. However, an award of exemplary damages against the RNZAF cannot be justified on the law and the evidence called at trial. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 30 (PDF, 144 KB)