Judge describes Electricity Industry Act claim as clearly misconceived
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has affirmed a deputy registrar’s two decisions on security for costs in connection with the respondent Unison Networks Ltd’s contract with the appellant and his partner to supply electricity to a Taupō property.
The case was Tauru v Unison Networks Limited [2026] NZCA 522. After an objection from the administrator of the Māori freehold land where the property stood, Unison refused to enliven the connection.
Before the Disputes Tribunal, the appellant commenced a claim against Unison.
The tribunal dismissed the appellant’s claim. According to the tribunal, Unison could cancel the contract based on a breach of the warranty that they had the authority they needed to ask for the connection.
The appellant’s attempt to recall the tribunal ruling failed.
On 4 March 2026, the High Court struck out the appellant’s claim for not being reasonably arguable and/or for abusing the process.
On 31 March 2026, the appellant appealed. In his first application dated 1 April 2026, he sought to dispense with security for costs of $7,060. Unison opposed that application.
On 30 April 2026, the High Court of New Zealand ordered the appellant to pay the appellant costs in connection with its earlier strike-out decision.
The appellant again appealed. In his second application, he sought to dispense with security for costs of $9,700. Unison also opposed that application.
The deputy registrar dismissed the appellant’s first application. Agreeing with Unison, the deputy registrar decided that a reasonable and solvent litigant would not pursue the appeal, which lacked merit.
The deputy registrar also determined that Unison should not have to defend itself against the appeal without the usual amount of security for costs because the appeal’s possible benefits did not clearly outweigh the potential costs.
The deputy registrar also denied the second application. Seeing no exceptional circumstances to warrant dispensing with security for costs, the deputy registrar found that Unison did not need to defend itself against the appeal without the typical sum of security for costs.
The appellant applied for a review of the deputy registrar’s decisions on both applications.
The Court of Appeal declined the review applications because it found the deputy registrar’s decisions correct. The appeal court saw no error in the deputy registrar’s refusal of the appellant’s two applications.
The appeal court ruled that no solvent appellant would reasonably want to prosecute these appeals.
The appeal court described the claim under the Electricity Industry Act 2010 as clearly misconceived because legislation precluded the claim’s aspects that replicated the tribunal claim.
The appeal court explained that the appellant was pursuing the jurisdictional issue via judicial review of the tribunal decision, and that the cost ruling followed the substantive decision.
In a dispute over whether certain installations on a strip of land were lawful, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand issued a 31 July 2026 ruling granting leave to appeal from the High Court’s denial of interim relief pending the determination of judicial review proceedings.
On 16 April 2026, the appeal court rejected an appellant’s argument that he and an advertising company’s chief executive officer had a “meeting of the minds” regarding the suspension of the performance of the company’s obligations under loan agreements.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest energy and resources news on the main page!
