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
Alavine Feliuia Liu v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 31/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 9, 9.1 and 3 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that art 9, and in particular art 9.1, were not relevant to deportation cases – Whether the respondent erred in not having specific regard to art 9 notwithstanding its consideration of other specific articles in the convention – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that with the exception of Ewebiyi v Parr no other authorities referred to it held that art 9.1 applied to deportation cases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant case law and its assessment as to the reconciliation of arts 3 and 9.1.CA 4/2014[2014] NZCA 37 CA 754/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Israel Zuydendorp v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – The Court of Appeal erred in holding that counsel’ s behaviour did not lead to an unfair trial – Appellate counsel erred conducting the appeal – The Court of Appeal erred in findings in relation to propensity of witness testimony.[2014] NZCA 35 CA 254/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ISRAEL ZUYDENDORP v R [2014] NZSC 88 7 July 2014 (PDF, 73 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 33/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether or not the High Court erred in upholding the liquidation order made by the District Court.Civ 2013 409 1059
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 May 2014
2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation) v Rhys James Cain and Bruce Donald Gemmell as liquidators of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 34/2014
Summary
[2014] NZHC 165 Civ 2013 409 1779
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sajo Oyang Corporation and Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Limited v The Ministry for Primary Industries and The Director - General of the Ministry for Primary Industries
Case number
SC 35/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-defendant third parties do not have standing to participate in an application relating to the special circumstances exception to automatic forfeiture of property following conviction for specified fisheries offences under s 255C of the Fisheries Act 1996[2014] NZCA 46 CA 167/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Anthony Blair v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal –Evidence Act 2006, ss 46 and 126 – Whether voice identification evidence was admitted at trial contrary to the provisions of s 46 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admitting the voice identification evidence did not materially affect the result and therefore there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the case against the defendant did not depend “substantially” on the voice identification evidence within the meaning of the word contained at section 126.[2014] NZCA 101 CA 92/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.
21 July 2014
21 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAUL ANTHONY BLAIR v R [2014] NZSC 92 21 July 2014 (PDF, 43 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Charles York and Alpine Glacier Motel Limited v Westland District Council
Case number
SC 37/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act.[2014] NZCA 59 CA 774/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bruce Franklin Charnley v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 2014
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 131B(1) – Whether or not the conviction for sexual grooming was consistent with the reality of the situation – Whether or not the conviction for sexual grooming was consistent with the purpose of the offence – Whether or not a sentence of preventative detention should have been imposed.
[2013] NZCA 226 CA 426/2012
Case name
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to waive the requirement to pay security for costs.[2014] NZCA 65 CA 524/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment of appeal having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
7 November 2014
7 November 2014
Case Number
SC 39/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Page 140 of 252