New Zealand Edition (Friday 6 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Friday 6 November 2026 carries seven decisions newly reported, one from the Supreme Court and six from the High Court, and all seven are aired. The thread is what you have to show: a taxpayer must prove the Commissioner's decision wrong, an occupier needs an interest the owner gave, a bankrupt needs a claim worth vesting, and a restrained litigant needs a real reason to be heard. Criminal Law Desk (lead). Burns-Wong-Tung v The King [2026] NZSC 169 - persons who are sworn or affirmed but then largely refuse to answer are witnesses under the Evidence Act 2006 (Jones v R followed; Ford v R distinguished), a proposition raising no matter of general or public importance; no likelihood of error in the application of Morgan v R or in the finding that probative value outweighed the unfair prejudice under s 8; the fair trial ground fell with them; leave on sentence refused for want of detailed submissions. Extension of time granted; leave to appeal dismissed (Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ, 6 November 2026). JADE Commercial Law Desk . DD4 Infrastructure Limited (In Liq) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZHC 2922 - in a challenge to a disputable decision under s 138C of the Tax Administration Act 1994 the taxpayer bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the decision is wrong; the issues were whether s 19(3B) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 precludes a required s 19A(2) direction to an invoice basis, and whether each company had ceased to satisfy the s 19A(1) conditions at notification. The edition reproduces only part of the reasons and records no holding on those issues and no orders, so no outcome is stated. Practice points from the Signal: build an affirmative evidential case, map the Part 4A steps early, plead against every ground the Commissioner advances at any stage, and notify changes promptly under s 53(1)(cb) (Grice J, 24 September 2026). JADE McCulloch v Kovalenko [2026] NZHC 3340 - summary judgment for possession under r 12.2(1) of the High Court Rules 2016: a registered proprietor recovers possession unless the occupier shows an arguable legal or equitable interest; a licence passes no interest in land and a licensee cannot confer a life interest binding the owner; an implied licence is revocable on reasonable notice; equitable estoppel binds only the party who created the expectation, and there was no clear representation or reliance; the prospect of homelessness did not outweigh the estate's duty to sell. Granted (Associate Judge Gambrill, 29 October 2026). JADE Practice and Procedure Desk . Baker v Lane Neave [2026] NZHC 3378 - vesting disclaimed litigation rights in a bankrupt under s 119 of the Insolvency Act 2006 must be fair: the Court weighs the strength of the claim, delay and the defendant's interests; rights that are not reasonably arguable should not be vested; later strike-out, summary judgment or security is no answer; unpaid costs and bankruptcy risked a barren costs award. Dismissed (Associate Judge Taylor, 30 October 2026). JADE Baker v Public Service Commissioner [2026] NZHC 3301 and McKenzie v Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court [2026] NZHC 3403 - leave under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016 for a litigant subject to a restraint: no prescribed test, strike-out principles do not apply, the interests of justice are informed by the timeliness purpose of the reforms and r 1.2, and the applicant must show some special justification. Leave to seek judicial review of alleged Human Rights Review Tribunal delay dec