Judge upholds deputy registrar’s findings of lack of merit or public interest in appeal
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has declined an application to review a deputy registrar’s findings that a High Court ruling appeared reasonable and that the appeal lacked merit and raised no issues of public importance warranting dispensing with security.
The case was The Tangikaroro and Whakaangiangi Kaitiaki Group Trust v Ingleby New Zealand LP [2026] NZCA 532.
The High Court issued orders to:
In a notice of appeal filed on 31 October 2025, the appellant argued that the High Court:
Mr Wanoa described himself as a trustee who was appearing for the appellant.
On 5 March 2026, the deputy registrar advised Mr Wanoa that r 36 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 would not apply if the appellant had not applied for legal aid before filing its notice of appeal.
The deputy registrar refused to dispense with security for costs. According to the deputy registrar, a reasonable and solvent litigant would not have proceeded with the appeal.
Mr Wanoa applied for a review of the deputy registrar’s decision. The Court of Appeal refused to review the decision.
Regarding the legal aid application, the Court of Appeal saw an insufficient basis to arrive at a position different from the deputy registrar’s.
The appeal court acknowledged the following evidence:
Describing the appeal as hopeless, the Court of Appeal found no additional details pertaining to the grounds of appeal.
“Beyond setting out a list of ways in which legal decision‑making can be wrong, Mr Wanoa has not sought to articulate the basis on which he says the High Court’s decision in the present case was wrong,” Justice Johnstone wrote for the appeal court.
Mr Wanoa claimed that the deputy registrar’s assessment was too narrow.
Mr Wanoa asserted that the appeal raised issues regarding the interplay of the Overseas Investment Act 2005, the Resource Management Act 1991, and te Tiriti o Waitangi in connection with “carbon farming” on pastoral and “Māori‑connected” land by foreign‑owned entities.
“However, without Mr Wanoa having articulated any basis on which it might be said the High Court decision (in the respects in which it is appealed against) is wrong, questions about such interplay simply do not arise,” Justice Johnstone wrote.
Given its findings, the Court of Appeal characterised the issue of whether there was sufficient financial information as moot.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand issued a 29 October 2026 ruling affirming a deputy registrar’s two decisions on security for costs in connection with the respondent’s contract with the appellant and his partner to supply electricity to a Taupō property.
In a dispute over whether certain installations on a strip of land were lawful, the appeal court made a 31 July 2026 decision granting leave to appeal from the High Court of New Zealand’s denial of interim relief pending the determination of judicial review proceedings.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
