New Zealand Edition (2 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Monday 2 November 2026 carries 26 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Ten are aired at depth and sixteen in the registry. The thread is telling the real thing from its look alike: injury made worse against symptoms made worse, a common interest against a common blackout, consents that run with the land, and an admission that counts even after the verdict. Practice and Procedure Desk (lead). Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation [2026] NZHC 3164 - aggravation that makes the underlying injury materially worse, not merely its symptoms, may satisfy the contributes-to-the-cause limb of s 30(2)(b)(i) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; under s 30(2A) the Corporation bears the burden of showing the risk was not significantly greater, and an absence of literature is relevant but not determinative; an expert's view on the legal standard was beyond his expertise. Appeal allowed; remitted to the District Court (Andrew J, 14 October 2026). JADE Skibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited [2026] NZHC 3275 - the r 4.24 same interest test is a low threshold, but where liability depends on a novel duty of care whose elements may vary with each member's loss and circumstances, the duty cannot be assumed common to the class; opt out, common fund and notification orders declined; the plaintiffs may recast (Heine J, 21 October 2026). JADE Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NZHC 3218 - no blanket direction on whether a party's Australian instructing solicitors may inspect confidential documents disclosed in New Zealand; the risk of subconscious use in parallel proceedings is not fanciful and undertakings are not a complete answer; decided document by document or category by category, with leave reserved (Fitzgerald J, 19 October 2026). JADE Commercial Law Desk . Cochrane v Auckland Council [2026] NZHC 3043 - a land use or subdivision consent attaches to the land unless it expressly provides otherwise (s 134(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991); the original applicant remains a consent holder able to apply under s 127, but removing the owners' right to enjoy the consents is an adverse effect to be assessed for notification, and allocating economic benefit between private parties is not a proper purpose for a condition. Decisions set aside as to those consents (Arthur J, 5 October 2026). JADE Tramroad Ltd v Guru NZ Forests Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] NZHC 3324 - leave for a late summary judgment application; a director liable for breaches of ss 135 and 136 of the Companies Act 1993, and, following Yan v Mainzeal, a creditor may claim compensation from the director directly under s 301(1)(c) (Associate Judge Taylor, 27 October 2026). JADE Criminal Law Desk . Et (SC55/2026) v The King [2026] NZSC 163 - reported as legal doctrine only. Whether juvenile conduct may be used as propensity evidence for later adult offending, and whether the disjunctive definition in s 40(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 still requires a relevant propensity to be identified, are arguable but were not decided; the case was not an appropriate vehicle and no miscarriage risk arose. Leave dismissed (Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ, 2 November 2026). JADE Kavanaugh v The King [2026] NZCA 518 - statements to a pre-sentence alcohol and drug report writer are not privileged and not hearsay (s 27 of the Evidence Act 2006); an un