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
Laxman Rajamani v the Queen
Case number
SC 8/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – murder – husband killed wife – defence of lack of murderous intent and provocation – husband and wife both Indian - alleged provocative act by wife was in threatening to leave her husband for a Pakistani colleague – whether trial judge erred in proceeding with the trial to verdict with only ten jurors after two jurors had been discharged – whether trial judge erred in summing up on provocation – whether defence counsel’s cross-examination of a key Crown witness was inadequate; and whether trial judge’s summing up with respect to that witness was unbalanced – whether hearsay evidence from deceased a few days before her death concerning threats to her life from the defendant should have been admitted under R v Manase [2001] 2 NZLR 197; and whether trial judge’ s instructions as to the use to which that evidence could be put were incorrect. CA 140/06 20 December 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
19 April 2007
____________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered.
23 August 2007
19 April 2007
____________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered.
23 August 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 July 2007 (PDF, 321 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
RAJAMANI v R SC 8/2007 [19 April 2007] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
RAJAMANI v R SC 8/2007 [23 August 2007] (PDF, 38 KB)
Case name
Joseph Ronald Belcher v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 33/2007
Summary
Criminal – sexual offending – appeal against sentence – applicant first sentenced in 1996 – Extended Supervision Order (ESO) imposed in 2005 – whether applicant received a fair hearing by an independent tribunal – whether imposition of ESO was unlawful, arbitrary and manifestly excessive – whether process by which ESO was imposed was flawed in relation to admissibility and treatment of evidence or otherwise – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding it had no jurisdiction to make a declaration of inconsistency of the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Act 2004 with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.CA 185/05 3 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 July 2007
16 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Palmiro McDonald v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 339 – exercise of discretion by trial judge to include an lesser charge – whether jury direction effective to cure any prejudice caused by disclosure of inadmissible evidence at trial. CA 356/06 20 April 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 August 2007
21 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
McDONALD v R SC 36/2007 [21 August 2007] (PDF, 22 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
KMA v Secretary for Justice
Case number
SC 42/2007
Summary
Civil Appeal – Hague Convention – leap frog appeal against a High Court decision following a Court of Appeal decision refusing leave – whether the High Court erred by upholding a Family Court’s decision ordering two of the applicant’s children be returned to Australia under the Hague Convention – whether the High Court erred by refusing to consider a submission that the respondent acquiesced by taking no steps in relation to the application for four and a half months - application for stay of execution – application to adduce new evidence regarding the financial position of the parties and allegations that the respondent sexually abused another childCA 159/07 5 June 2007; CIv 2006 409 2482 16 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved.
20 July 2007
______________________
Judgment of the Court on costs issued.
29 August 2007
Costs reserved.
20 July 2007
______________________
Judgment of the Court on costs issued.
29 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Case name
Mustafa Can v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2007
Summary
Criminal – sexual violation – s 128 Crimes Act 1961 – whether the jury direction on the applicant’s reasonable belief in consent, based on the test in R v Gutuama (Court of Appeal, CA 275/01, 13 December 2001), was in conflict with the statutory language in s 128 Crimes Act 1961 – whether expert evidence as to the intellectual limitations of the complainant was wrongly admitted.CA 492/05 16 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 27 November 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MUSTAFA CAN v R SC 54/2007 [27 November 2007] (PDF, 19 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Raymond Main v Kevin Evan Main
Case number
SC 56/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 2(3) – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the respondent had proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes – whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make s 2(3) finding – whether the respondent had complied with the Court of Appeal’ s order as to the filing of additional evidence – whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account evidence filed.CA 25/07 23 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 8 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MAIN v MAIN SC 56/2007 [8 October 2007] (PDF, 13 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Glenharrow Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 59/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – avoidance of GST under section 76 of Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – whether the High Court erred in its findings of fact relating to the value of the mining license purchased by the applicant - whether the High Court erred when it concluded that the purchase price for the mining license was grossly inflated – whether the evidence was such that only one conclusion was reasonably open to the Court – whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of incorrect findings of fact – whether, given the High Court finding that the transaction was a genuine arms length agreement, there was a basis for a finding under section 76 that the transaction defeated the scheme and purposes of the Act– whether an open market value should be used when determining GST obligations where a transaction is genuine and at arms length – whether the Court of Appeal erred by conflating the value of a loan used to purchase an asset with the consideration paid – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining the total consideration – whether it was open to the Court of Appeal to make a finding that the loan repayments amounted to an ‘ empty obligation’ – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of Peterson v CIR [2006] 3 NZLR 433CA 192/05 15 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 4 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 8 – 10 July 2008
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath , Anderson JJ
Case name
Christopher Cliff Morris v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 229A – using a tax document with intent to defraud – whether, under the Tax Administration Act 1994, employees of the Inland Revenue Department can give evidence in the prosecution – whether ss 81(1) and 81(3) of that Act preclude employees of the Inland Revenue Department giving evidence unless either the prosecution is initiated by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for offences under the Inland Revenue Acts or the evidence falls within one of the exceptions listed in s 81(4) – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to direct a new trial under s 382 of the Crimes Act 1961 – application for leave to appeal out of time.CA 120/04 4 November 2004
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 30 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MORRIS v R SC 61/2007 [30 October 2007] (PDF, 18 KB)
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
James Arthur Rose v Karen Diane Rose
Case number
SC 73/2007
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – whether a partnership interest is an asset for the purposes of the Act – whether improvements to land that is relationship property form part of that land by operation of Land Transfer Act 1952 definition of “land” – whether increases in value to property caused by inflation are within the scope of claims under s 9A(1) or 9A(2) – whether s 9A(2) claim required evidence of an action by the respondent that had the effect of increasing the value of the property – whether s 2G requires assets and liabilities to be valued at the same date. [2007] NZCA 406 CA 212/06 11 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
6 December 2007
___________________________
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
19 May 2009
6 December 2007
___________________________
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
19 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007 [6 December 2007] (PDF, 14 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Page 20 of 23