Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board - [2025] NZCA 416

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA446/2024
[2025] NZCA 416

BETWEEN	JOHN BRIAN KIPPING Applicant
AND	ELECTRICAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD Respondent

Court:	Mallon, Peters and Grice JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S C Carter and A S Bagchi for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	20 August 2025 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is declined.

B The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Grice J)

Introduction

John Kipping seeks leave to bring a second appeal against conviction and sentence on two charges of doing unauthorised prescribed electrical work in breach of the Electricity Act 1992.[1]
[1]Electricity Act 1992, ss 74 and 162 — maximum penalty $50,000 fine.
The charges arose out of Mr Kipping removing heat pumps from two properties without authorisation. He was convicted on the two charges on 11 August 2023 in the District Court at Christchurch.[2] He was found not guilty on a third charge of installing a heat pump when not authorised to do so.[3]
[2]Electrical Workers Registration Board v Kipping [2023] NZDC 16749 [District Court conviction judgment].
[3]At [75].
Mr Kipping was sentenced to a fine of $1,500 in respect of each charge, amounting to a $3,000 fine overall.[4] On appeal, the High Court upheld Mr Kipping’s convictions and reduced his sentence to a $1,125 fine on each charge.[5] No costs were awarded.
[4]Electrical Workers Registration Board v Kipping [2023] NZDC 25036 [District Court sentencing judgment].
[5]Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board [2024] NZHC 1557 [High Court judgment].
Mr Kipping applies for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal, in the form of an affidavit.

Proposed grounds of appeal

Mr Kipping’s grounds of appeal filed in relation to the conviction may be summarised as follows:
(a)the lower courts were wrong in finding Mr Kipping guilty on the charges, as the isolator switch on the appliances was turned off, which precludes the basis for the offending; and
(b)procedural defects at trial, including the late witness statements filed by the prosecution and its failure to call two witnesses, meant Mr Kipping did not get a fair trial.
In relation to the sentence appeal, Mr Kipping says a total fine of $2,500 is manifestly excessive.
The respondent opposes both leave being granted and the admission of the affidavit as further evidence.

Further evidence on appeal

Mr Kipping has filed an affidavit dated 23 December 2024 which goes into some detail about previous court cases he has been involved in and their various outcomes. The affidavit also refers to his argument that an exemption applies under the Electricity Act where an appliance is wired in through an isolator, and therefore the work was not “prescribed electrical work” for the purposes of s 74. He suggests that his lawyer, who withdrew on the morning of the hearing, was incompetent.
Mr Kipping further complains of late witness statements filed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board

Details

AGLC: Kipping v Electrical Workers Registration Board [2025] NZCA 416
Case: [2025] NZCA 416
Decision Date: 20 August 2025 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, John Brian Kipping, has applied to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand to bring a second appeal against his conviction and sentence on two charges of unauthorised electrical work, which occurred in breach of the Electricity Act 1992. He was convicted and sentenced in the District Court at Christchurch and his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal in the High Court. Mr Kipping seeks leave to adduce further evidence and to bring a second appeal on the basis of alleged procedural defects at trial and an argument that the total fine of $2,500 is excessive. The Electrical Workers Registration Board opposes both applications.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the evidence proposed to be adduced was fresh, credible, and cogent, and whether leave should be granted to bring a second appeal. The court had to consider whether the proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance, or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal was heard.

The court declined leave to adduce further evidence as it was neither fresh nor cogent. The affidavit filed by Mr Kipping was largely in the nature of submissions rather than evidence and did not include any expert evidence to contest the findings of the lower courts. The court also declined leave to bring a second appeal as there was no issue of general or public importance raised, nor any basis for suggesting that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal was heard. The court found that the fines were not manifestly excessive and that the reduction made to Mr Kipping’s sentence on appeal was sufficient to recognise the delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The application for leave to adduce further evidence is declined. The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

Orders