Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
23 December 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
All years
Case name
Nikala Janice Taylor v Christopher Dean Jones
Case number
SC 88/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – applicant implicated in abduction of child – orders made against applicant by High Court pursuant to application under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – standard of proof applicable in ordering that person in shoes of applicant release another person from detention – whether sufficient evidential basis to justify making of orders – whether Court of Appeal erred in disclaiming jurisdiction to hear appeal against orders on basis that they were interim rather than final – whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming High Court’s direction for oral examination of applicant – adequacy of interim orders made by Court of Appeal to protect applicant against self-incrimination.CA 2302006 10 November 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
6 December 2006
__________________________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court quashed. Supression of name to lapse at 9 am on 7 December 2006. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
6 December 2006
__________________________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court quashed. Supression of name to lapse at 9 am on 7 December 2006. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment
Transcript
Case name
Patricia Linda Owens v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 89/2006
Summary
Summary Civil – applicant in receipt of benefits paid by Work and Income – failure to declare interest in a flat which was rented out – applicant did not deliberately mislead WINZ – whether inequitable for WINZ to seek repayment of accommodation supplement – whether relative fault can be taken into account for the purposes of s 86(9A) Social Security Act 1964 – whether principles from common law change of position defence apply to s 86(9A).CA 131/05, CA 132/05 30 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1500 to respondent.
20 February 2007
20 February 2007
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kay Halton Skelton v Christopher Dean Jones
Case number
SC 90/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – abduction of parties’ child – applicant currently imprisoned for contempt for non-compliance with orders made by High Court under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 –appeal to Court of Appeal abandoned following decision now subject of application for leave to appeal in SC 88/2006 – applicant also facing criminal proceedings in relation to abduction – whether habeas corpus proceedings in High Court should be stayed or struck out as abuse of process – whether breach of natural justice prior to orders being made – whether sufficient evidential basis for orders – whether orders interim or final – whether High Court, having ordered release of child in discharge of its function under the Habeas Corpus Act, lacked jurisdiction to make further orders relating to swearing of affidavit by, and cross-examination of, applicant – whether orders, with or without accompanying safeguards, breached applicant’s right to silence as a person charged with a criminal offence (s 25 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990).CIV 2006 419 1489 18 October 2006
Result
6 December 2006
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
SKELTON v JONES SC 90/2006 [20 August 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
Reasons for judgmnet
Transcript
Case name
The New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 91/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – whether s44(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 permits an employee’s entitlement to the observance of designated public holidays to be transferred by agreement to another day or days so as to remove, in respect of the specified public holidays, entitlement under the Act to payment on a time and a half basis – whether leave to appeal should be granted notwithstanding that the applicant succeeded in the Court of Appeal.. CA 474/06 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 March 2007
____________________________
Appeal and Cross Appeal dismissed.
Order of Court of Appeal remitting the proceeding to the Employment Court stands.
Costs to appellant $25,000 plus disbursements.
Order for Costs in Court of Appeal stands.
14 November 2007
7 March 2007
____________________________
Appeal and Cross Appeal dismissed.
Order of Court of Appeal remitting the proceeding to the Employment Court stands.
Costs to appellant $25,000 plus disbursements.
Order for Costs in Court of Appeal stands.
14 November 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2007 SC 91/2006 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 89 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christopher John Manawatu v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2006
Summary
Criminal – applicant convicted of aggravated robbery and driving while disqualified – applicant convicted in separate proceeding of three counts of manslaughter, and one charge each of reckless driving and excess blood alcohol – no appeal against conviction or sentence – whether s 398 Crimes Act infringes ss 14, 25(a) and 25(h) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or Articles 14(1), 19(2) and 26 of ICCPR – whether s 398 discriminates against criminal appellants, there being no equivalent provision applying to civil cases – whether Court of Appeal should have disclosed to counsel prior to the hearing that s 398(1) is in the process of being repealed - whether Court of Appeal should have made Declaration of Inconsistency of s 398 with BORA - whether undue appellate delay – whether there should be a reduction in sentence by reason of appellate delay. CA 111/05 CA 112/05 10 November 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 March 2007
8 March 2007
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Colyn David Stoves v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against sentence – recidivist drink driving offending – whether Court of Appeal erred in confirming sentencing judge’ s assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors – whether sentence partially reflected offending outside scope of present charges, in breach of s 25 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether Court of Appeal erred in confirming that applicant’s ‘poor responses’ to community work and bail obligations properly contributed to refusal of leave to apply for home detention CA 264/06 7 November 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 15 February 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
STOVES v R SC 93/2006 [15 February 2007] (PDF, 13 KB)
Additional document
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Josko Sestan v The Director of Area Mental Health Services, Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 94/2006
Summary
Civil– application to appeal from decision of the Court of Appeal declining to issue writ of habeas corpus – whether a person detained under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment Act) 1992 has all the rights of a person detained contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether Court of Appeal erred in wrongly or inadequately analysing whether the applicant was mentally disordered – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to place burden properly on respondent to show mental disorder – whether reasons for dangerousness finding sufficient – whether Family Court and Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant was mentally disordered – whether inadequate reasons given for finding of mental disorder – whether applicant wrongly deprived of due process rights.CA 254/06 12 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 February 2007
_________________________
Application for costs dismissed.
7 March 2007
15 February 2007
_________________________
Application for costs dismissed.
7 March 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HITCHINGS v R SC 98/2006 [9 March 2007] (PDF, 19 KB)
Additional document
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (COSTS) (PDF, 14 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcription
Case name
John Anthony Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2006
Summary
Criminal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – trial Judge awarded costs to defendants acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering brought by Serious Fraud Office – Court of Appeal majority held that High Court Judge had erred in failing to take account of risk of a substantial award inhibiting the exercise of proper prosecutorial function – whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the cost award because it was “disproportionate” – whether Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted s 5(1) of the Act. CA 474/06 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 29 May 2007 ____________ Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together ith reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenses. 14 November 2007
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together ith reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenses. 14 November 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
REID And Ors V R SC 95/2006 [29 May 2007] (PDF, 17 KB)
Hearing
10 and 11 October 2007_note SC3/2007
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Southbourne Investments Limited v Greenmount Manufacturing Limited
Case number
SC 96/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – option in deed of lease to purchase the relevant land - lessee’s purported exercise of option rejected by lessor because the exercise allegedly failed to conform with terms of the option – Court of Appeal, applying the Reporoa Stores “exact compliance” test, held that the option was validly exercised – whether the Court of Appeal in substance applied the “exact compliance” test – whether there was in fact “exact compliance” with the terms of the option. CA 90/06 21 November 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
20 April 2007
___________________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders for summary judgment and specific performance are set aside.
The proceeding is remitted to the High Court.
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $13,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court of $3,000.
2 August 2007
20 April 2007
___________________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders for summary judgment and specific performance are set aside.
The proceeding is remitted to the High Court.
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $13,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court of $3,000.
2 August 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 April 2007 (PDF, 138 KB)
Media Releases
- mediarelease southbourneinvestments 000 (PDF, 88 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 28 June 2007 (PDF, 346 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Edgar Alan Moray Burns and Yvonne Joy Burns v ANZ National Bank of New Zealand
Case number
SC 97/2006
Summary
Summary Civil – applicants sought to cancel settlement agreement made with respondent bank – proceedings arose out of claim against bank alleging breach of trust or fiduciary obligation by bank in failing to pay to applicants proceeds of sales of trees made by an agent of the applicants (knowing receipt) – failure on the part of respondent to discover documents which were discovered in a similar subsequent case involving another party – ss 7(3) and (4) Contractual Remedies Act – Court of Appeal found that there was a representation that discovery was adequate or complete when it was inadequate and incomplete – Court of Appeal found that applicants failed in their assertion of existence of agency relationship, having argued vendor/purchaser relationship in previous proceedings – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that materiality is a necessary element of inducement – whether Court of Appeal erred in speculating how representors would have acted had position not been misrepresented to them to determine substantiality. CA 269/05 27 November 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.
17 April 2007
17 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 239 of 252