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
Robert Lee as Trustee of the Estate of JG Lee v Gergory Lee, Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee as trustees of The Leeroy Family Trust
Case number
SC 81/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the appellant to pay security for costs under rule 5.45 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Farisha Farina Dean v Associate Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 82/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, ss 61 and 172 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the decision of the respondent not to cancel the applicant’s liability for deportation and grant her a visa was not unreasonable.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Harassment Act 1997, s 8(1) – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
Date of hearing
28 May 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 May 2020 (PDF, 195 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 74 (PDF, 126 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
P(SC 84/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 84/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in exercising its discretion not to grant name suppression under s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for a person connected with a criminal proceeding.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 June 2020
17 June 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Phillip Richard Joe v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal made errors of fact in its sentencing decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to renew the application in the circumstances set out below at [5].
[5] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed but without prejudice to the ability to file another application for leave to appeal to this Court if the recall application is dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
4 November 2019
B Leave is reserved to renew the application in the circumstances set out below at [5].
[5] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed but without prejudice to the ability to file another application for leave to appeal to this Court if the recall application is dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
4 November 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Harry Memelink and Lynx Trustees Limited as Trustees of Link Trust (No 1) and Harry Memelink v Collins and May Law
Case number
SC 87/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a High Court judgment that the respondent law firm was negligent in a conveying transaction.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The first applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. Given the position at [2], we make no costs award against the second applicant.
11 October 2019
B The first applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. Given the position at [2], we make no costs award against the second applicant.
11 October 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Riki Scott Steen Walls v Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and Vivien Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 88/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – High Court Rules 2016 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that neither the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 nor the principles of natural justice were engaged in interpreting r 15.9(2) of the High Court Rules 2016 in the applicant’s circumstances.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Barry Ross Laurence Castleton-Reid v Ross Ronayne Reid
Case number
SC 89/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not intend to make a gift to the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the money transferred to the applicant was held on resulting trust for the respondent.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 October 2019
17 October 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Lee Kalso Peri Thompson v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring a pre-trial appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
23 October 2019
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
23 October 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Neville Bublitz v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Party to offence – Failure to give adequate reasons for verdict – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
9 December 2019
9 December 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Page 77 of 252