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
The Queen v TWW
Case number
SC 80/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 February 2015 (PDF, 506 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jonathan Dixon v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in amending the charge and entering a conviction on the amended charge – Whether amending the charge breached the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and take into account relevant submissions and evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider and take into account relevant submissions denied the applicant a proper opportunity of appeal under s 383 of the Crimes Act and resulted in a breach of the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding a miscarriage of justice.[2014] NZCA 329 CA 518/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 March 2015 (PDF, 447 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 147 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2014] NZSC 151 [23 October 2014] (PDF, 42 KB)
Substantive judgment
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2015] NZSC 147 [20 October 2015] (PDF, 343 KB)
Case name
The Wanaka Gym Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 84/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted. [2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fiona Caroline Graham v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 85/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.[2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Arthur Sylvan Morgenstern and Tanya May Lavas v Stephanie Beth Jeffreys and Timothy Wilson Downes
Case number
SC 109/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 131, 135, 137, 138 and 301 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim for breach of ss 131 (duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company), 135 (duty not to agree to, cause or allow reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care), in relation to selling an asset (shares) to the company at an alleged undervalue, the onus is on the director to prove that the asset was transferred for fair value – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a director facing claims under ss 131, 135 and 137, who relied on professional advice, is required by s 138 to plead this as an affirmative defence and bears the onus of proof – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim under s 301, the onus is on the director to prove that the breach caused no loss to the company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in fixing the amount to be paid or contributed under s 301, by proceeding on a restitutionary basis and failing to take into account the actual loss caused to creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an inference could be drawn against the first appellant, by reason of failure to call evidence from the company’s accountants, when the respondents, as liquidators, were in an equal or better position to call that evidence.[2014] NZCA 449 CA 122/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Medhi Jaffari and Tracy Jaffari v Livia Grabowski
Case number
SC 114/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Reciprocal Enforcements of Judgments Act 1934, s 6(d); Svirkis v Gibson [1977] 2 NZLR 4 (CA); and Syal v Howard [1948] 2 KB 443 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to afford the appellants natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give the appellants leave to adduce additional evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly consider relevant matters – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly apply the law set out in Svirkis v Gibson and Syal v Howard – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by incorrectly stating and unfairly discounting the appellant’ s evidence.[2014] NZCA 399 CA 52/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Case name
Patrick Dean Norris v Bruce Donald Gemmell and Rhys James Cain
Case number
SC 119/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 255 and 283 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the requirements of s 255(2)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misdirecting themselves on the statutory purpose and the natural wording of s 283(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that liquidators appointed pursuant to s 283 are not required to advise the Registrar of their appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a liquidator’s statutory ability to act as liquidator does not commence immediately on appointment as has been long held in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that pursuant to s 283(2) if the person who wishes to resign is not currently the liquidator there can be no resignation and no new appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was a vacancy when Messrs Gemmell and Cain were appointed by the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Official Assignee was able to arbitrarily remove and replace a statutorily appointed and properly acting liquidator – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Mr Churchill was never validly appointed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing leave to adduce certain new evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to costs.[2014] NZCA 490 CA 857/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
MTR v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2014
11 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2014] NZCA 520 not available online
Case name
John Douglas Tamati Te Hoko-Whitu-Atu Hauraki as trustee of the Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts v Richard Tatere
Case number
SC 134/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the trustees’ children as if they were income beneficiaries when there was irrefutable evidence that eight of the nine children had ceased to be and were not income beneficiaries for the purposes of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the only condition of the consents of both sets of beneficiaries, that due and proper consideration be given to the claims relating to “tipuna whenua” , “whakapapa” and “taonga tuku iho” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to consider whakapapa which it had provisionally allowed to be adduced.[2014] NZCA 532 CA 451/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 20 February 2015
Judgment appealed from
Page 9 of 23