Successful appeal by GDL from a decision of HC dismissing its appeal from, and judicial review challenge to, a decision of an Expert Consenting Panel established under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 – Panel declined GDL’s application for a resource consent permitting a medium-density residential housing development - GDL contended Panel misinterpreted the Act in declining the application, and that there was procedural impropriety – 

Panel had not asked the questions that were required to be asked under the Act in the manner identified by the Supreme Court in East West Link - Disclosure before a hearing crucial to testing impartiality – In some statutory contexts an interested decision-maker obliged to make the decision – No apparent bias nor predetermination - Panel to reconsider its decision. 

Criminal sentence appeal, discounts for guilty plea and mental health difficulties

Subritzky v R [2025] NZCA 158

Unsuccessful appeals from CA – Case concerned two points of law arising in context of corporate insolvency – Insolvent companies (Bilta (UK) Ltd, Weston Trading UK Ltd, Nathanael Eurl Ltd (Nathanael), Vehement Solutions Ltd, and Inline Trading Ltd (Inline)) acquired huge tax liabilities from engaging in form of VAT fraud known as ‘missing trader intra-community fraud’ – Fraud carried out via trading EU carbon credits – VAT payments received paid to third parties should have been passed on to tax authorities – During liquidation, insolvent companies began proceedings against Tradition Financial Services Ltd (Tradition), saying Tradition (i) had knowingly participated in fraudulent scheme and should be required to contribute to liquidation under s 213 Insolvency Act 1986, and (ii) was liable for having dishonestly assisted fraudulent companies’ directors to breach duties as directors by engaging in fraud – Dispute partly settled by agreement between parties, leaving two issues of law for courts to decide on basis of assumed facts – In particular, to be assumed that Tradition, being involved in fraud as broker (introducing counterparties and negotiating terms on which carbon credits bought and sold) knew trades involved in were suspicious, that Inline and Nathanael unlikely to be legitimate trading concerns, and such companies likely fronts for illegitimate activities –  

Issues to be decided: (A) whether Tradition fell within scope of s 213; and (B) whether dishonest assistance claim time-barred – HC Judge said Tradition, in principle, within s 213, but dishonest assistance claims out of time – CA agreed – Both sides appealed to SC – On (A), Tradition said fell outside s 213 because provision in fact only applied to those involved in management or control of fraudulent business – Regarding (B), Nathanael and Inline said s 32 Limitation Act 1980, which postponed running of time until fraud could reasonably have been discovered, meant dishonest assistance claim not time-barred (as it otherwise would have been) since companies could not have discovered fraud directors orchestrated before liquidators appointed – Complicated as Nathanael and Inline each struck off and dissolved before later being restored to companies register and s 1032 Companies Act 2006 deemed restored company to have always been in existence – 

SC unanimously dismissed each appeal – Applying ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, Tradition was within s 213 (on assumed facts) – Deemed existence of Nathanael and Inline during period were in fact in dissolution did not necessitate assuming that they lacked directors or other officers during time – Question of probability to be determined on evidence: burden of proof on claimant companies and they had failed to discharge it – Dishonest assistance claim remained time-barred – Appeals dismissed.