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.

24 June 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)

All years

Case name
Reginald Robert Long v ANZ National Bank Limited
Case number
SC 31/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against summary judgment – Property Law Act 2007, s 176(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that mortgagee complied with duty to use reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that Respondent provided sufficient evidence to prove that there was no arguable defence against summary judgment. CA  708/2011  [2012] NZCA132
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs are reserved, with the respondent to submit a memorandum within seven days as to the costs sought and the applicant to reply within a further seven days.
4 July 2012.
Case name
Loktronic Industries Limited v Stephen John Diver and others
Case number
SC 32/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tort – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its statement of the test for the element of knowledge in the tort of inducing breach of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning findings of fact that were open to the trial judge and not plainly wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal imposed a more onerous duty on the appellant in its cross-examination of its witnesses at trial than is consistent with s 92(1) of the Evidence Act 2006. CA  258/2011  [2012] NZCA131
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,000 payable to each set of respondents making submissions.

24 July 2012.
Case name
John George Russell v Commissioner of Inland  Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax avoidance – Whether the applicant received a fair and impartial hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis of the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the overall arrangement established and operated by the applicant had the purpose or effect of tax avoidance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was a person affected by the arrangement and that he obtained a tax advantage – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the assessment made by the Commissioner would not be void even if it included income deemed by virtue of s 99(4) of the Income Tax Act 1976 to be the income of someone else.CA  654/2010  [2012] NZCA128
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent Commissioner plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
13 August 2012.
Case name
TK v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the hearsay statements of a 3-year old child were reliable and admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the child was “available as a witness” under the Evidence Act – Whether there would be prejudice arising out of not being able to cross-examine the child – Whether expert evidence on the accuracy of children’ s memory should be admitted.2012]NZCA 167  CA 94/2012
Dates
Application for leave to admit new evidence and for leave to appeal are dismissed.
4 July 2012.
Case name
L  v  R
Case number
SC 49/2012
Summary
Criminal – Surveillance - Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 – Evidence Act 2996, s 30 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that video surveillance of the entrance to the applicant’s driveway did not constitute an unlawful search - Whether the Court erred in admitting the evidence under s 30 Evidence Act 2006.[2012]NZCA 264  CA   143/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal refused.
7 August 2012.
Case name
Christopher Edward Huggins v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3) – Doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years – Unreasonable verdict – Insufficient evidence to convict – Court of Appeal erred in holding that lies told by the accused contributed to cogent circumstantial evidence of guilt.  [2012]NZCA 261  CA   768/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 September 2012.
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012
Result
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, New trial ordered.

19 November 2014
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.

20 December 2012.
Hearing

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.

Decision reserved.

Rehearing directed. 14 November 2013.
7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Cameron John Leef v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1) – Having sexual connection with a young person – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of complainant’s prior sexual experience was inadmissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred that there was no miscarriage of justice as a result of the admission of inadmissible evidence.[2012] NZCA 567   CA 248/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
Case name
Tama Wairere Iti v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Whether the jury should have been directed that evidence admissible under the co-conspirator’s rule was not available for consideration by the jury in relation to the Arms Act 1983 charges – Whether the statutory presumption of criminal liability under the Arms Act extended to a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of unlawful purpose under the Arms Act – Whether the jury’s inability to agree on the charge brought under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 retrospectively affected the analysis which led to certain evidence being admitted – Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to have regard to aspirational or general discussions of inchoate thoughts forming part of a discharged count.[2012] NZCA 492    CA 306/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
Case name
Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2) – Parties to offences – Arms Act 1983, s 45 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the appellants’ submission that the reverse onus in s 45(2) of the Arms Act did not apply to a party to an offence – Whether Police illegality in gathering evidence admitted at the trial should have been taken into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing.    [2012] NZCA 492    CA 363/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
Page 13 of 23