Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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
Jonathan Ian Blake v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against conviction – Whether erroneous legal advice given to Appellant by trial counsel on possible admissibility of previous convictions in cross-examination had a material influence on his decision not to give evidence at trial.  [2010] NZCA 61  CA 278/2009  11 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BLAKE v R SC 23/2010 [16 June 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

22 June 2010.
Case name
Trent Grant Holmes v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence for aggravated robbery and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account certain mitigating factors.[2010] NZCA 47  CA 723/2009  2 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HOLMES v R SC 24/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 June 2010.
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 25/2010
Summary
Civil – Stay of execution of judgment for costs pending appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the abrupt end to the proceedings was not the fault of the respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the proposed method of payment for the original litigation and security for costs was unknown – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that that Mr Fava was unlikely to regain control of two of the appellant companies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellants had no realistic prospect of success – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address one of the grounds of appeal.[2010] NZCA 88  CA 80/2010   23 March 2010
Dates

Notice of Abandoment of Appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.

25 May 2010.
Case name
Brett Stephen Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Unlawful sexual connection – whether the trial Judge erred in his failure to give directions in relation to the unreliability of the complainant’s evidence pursuant to s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – whether the inadequacy of the trial Judge’s directions regarding prejudice caused a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new expert evidence on appeal[2010] NZCA 69  CA 147/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v R SC 26/2010 [20 July 2010] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 July 2010.
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 and Ors
Case number
SC 27/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 673/2008   22 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by the North Shore City Council is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.
(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:
(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and
(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and
(iii) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases. C  The application for leave to appeal by the Second Respondent, Blue Sky Holdings Ltd, is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the North Shore City Council.
13 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal dismissed, Costs to the respondents.
17 December 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 188529 And Ors SC 27/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 27 2010 north shore city v body corporate 188529 and ors civil judgment (PDF, 205 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 189855 and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 507/2008   22 March 2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)  Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.

(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:

(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and

(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and

(c) The body corporate.

(iii) Whether the conclusions which would otherwise be reached are affected in circumstances where the Council declined to issue a code compliance certificate.

(iv) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases.

  13 July 2010

________________________

Appeal dismissed,

Costs to the respondents

17 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 189855 And Anor SC 28/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ

 
Case name
David Owen Crequer v Chief Exectutive, Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 30/2010
Summary
Civil – Denial of order for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to hear the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.[2010] NZCA 75  CA 125/2010   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 30/2010 [6 May 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal  dismissed.

Costs to Respondent $1,250.

6 May 2010
Case name
Dick Halton Headley v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether Judge Boshier erred in making public certain Family Court judgments – whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to this publication, or other information released on a website  – whether a stay of proceedings, or a change in venue should have been granted – whether the Court of Appeal erred by giving insufficient weight to the applicant’s right to a fair trial – whether the lack of experienced counsel and the appointment of an “amicus” prevented the applicant from adequately presenting his case – whether the inability to call a witness to give evidence undermined the applicant’s defence – whether police conduct in light of alleged conflicts of interest was unfair – whether the applicant was denied legal assistance to present his defence[2010] NZCA 71  CA 18/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HEADLEY v R SC 31/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 June 2010.
Case name
Kay Halton Skelton v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to set aside the applicant’s conviction, to which she entered a guilty plea, on the grounds of claimed wrongful refusals to grant a stay of proceedings, to direct a change of venue or to adjourn proceedings[2010] NZCA 71  CA 24/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SKELTON v R SC 32/2010 [13 August 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 October 2010.
Case name
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 33/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether duty of care owed by local authority in issuing a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) inducing party to enter into contract to purchase land – Whether local authority protected from liability by s 41 of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) when providing information in LIM in good faith – Whether s 44A of LGOIMA requires inclusion of information relating to water resource entitlements in a LIM – Whether loss is actually suffered in tort against a third party where compensatory damages under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 against a party to the contract have already offset financial loss suffered by misrepresentation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 448/2008 and CA 215/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (ii) If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.
14 July 2010
_____________________
The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the liability judgment given against it in favour of Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited is dismissed. The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the contribution judgment given against it in favour of D S and J W Moorhouse is allowed.  That judgment is set aside and judgment in favour of the Council is entered in respect of that claim. Costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.  Disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 33/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Additional document
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Ors SC 33/2010 [20 October 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Page 189 of 252