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
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and Visiting Justice to Springhill Correctional Facility
Case number
SC 102/2013
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 November 2013 - resumes 5 December 2013 (PDF, 466 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 63 (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.
[2013] NZCA 422 CA 170/2013
Dates
27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014.
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014.
Case name
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited
Case number
SC 103/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [2013] NZCA 386 CA 758/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 158 (PDF, 265 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Mikhail Rafael Pandey-Johnson v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2013
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Crown had proved causation – Whether trial counsel erred in failing to challenge causation at trial – Whether evidence of Crown witness was admissible – Whether minimum non-parole period imposed was too high – Whether factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied. [2012] NZCA 595 CA 515/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 December 2013
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited
Case number
SC 105/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.[2013] NZCA 401 CA 28/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Victor George Conway v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 15(1)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence relied on by the Crown supported the conviction of the applicant on the counts alleging breach of enforcement orders – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the prior statement of the applicant where supplementary information was required to interpret correctly the content of the statement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively ruling that under s 15(1)(b) the Crown did not need to establish a real risk that the contaminant discharge onto the land might enter water – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the ruling of the trial Judge as to the verdicts which ought to have been accepted from the jury where the jury had returned verdicts of guilty on all the charges the applicant faced including the counts laid against him in the alternative[2013] NZCA 438 CA 806/2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 October 2013
24 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Joan Mary Gilfedder v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal– s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure of the trial judge to give a propensity direction to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the use of a question trail during the trial – whether the Court of Appeal applied the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act and, if so, whether it was correct to do so.[2013] NZCA 426 CA 547/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 December 2013
Case name
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as trustees of the Appleton Family Trust and John Appleton.
Case number
SC 108/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the issue of causation in particular whether, if properly advised, the applicant would nevertheless have entered the transaction.[2013] NZCA 420 CA 858/2011
Result
A. Leave to appeal is granted.
B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
18 November 2013
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated. If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
18 November 2013
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated. If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 254 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Ngawati Heemi v The Queen
Case number
SC 109/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure of the trial judge to give a propensity direction to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the use of a question trail during the trial – whether the Court of Appeal applied the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act and, if so, whether it was correct to do so.[2013] NZCA 426 CA 594/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 December 2013.
Case name
David Neil Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 445/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
Case name
Daryl Kirsty Reid Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 444/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.Page 161 of 252