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
Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited  (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 1/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records. [2012] NZCA 553  CA 665/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

21 March 2013.
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction for sexual violation by rape – evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge had applied s 44 of the Evidence Act correctly in excluding certain evidence relating to the  reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. [2012] NZCA 602  CA 862/2011
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) in light of ss 7 and 44 of the Evidence Act 2006, the Judge should have permitted the applicant to lead all (or some) of the proposed evidence; and
(ii) the apparent inconsistency of the jury’s verdicts warranted the allowing of the appeal.
18 April 2013
Hearing
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
DMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 49 – Admissibility of convictions of a co-accused – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that where evidence of the convictions of a co-accused were admitted as circumstantial evidence the prejudicial effect of the evidence was likely to be less than the prejudice arising where that evidence conclusively proved an element of the offence. [2012] NZCA 605  CA 448/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 March 2013
Case name
Simon McGrath v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 25/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood sample was taken lawfully and in accordance with normal medical procedures – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood test was not an unreasonable search and seizure.[2013] NZCA 3  CA 375/2012  CA 463/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65  CA 282/2012
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b)  whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel.

15 May 2013

____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

20 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 26 June 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Andrew John Caplen Beavis v Elizabeth Joy De Vere and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 43/2013
Summary
Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment indicates bias against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment contain irrelevant statements or statements not supported by the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal had proper regard to the decision of the Family Court judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in departing from analysis provided by accountants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s business arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there were special circumstance justifying a departure order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that retrospective orders may be made under the Child Support Act 1991, and in making such an order – Whether the Court of Appeal otherwise erred in its interpretation of the Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have regard to certain relevant considerations and had regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal accepted that s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 was available, and erred in doing so – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.[2013] NZCA 124  CA 190/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 together with reasonable disbursement payable to the first respondent.
19 August 2013.

Application for recall dismissed.

20 September 2013
Case name
Siuake Lisiate v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction – Inadequate directions by trial judge on s 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Expert witnesses – Breach of Code of Conduct for expert witnesses (Sch 4, High Court Rules) – Trial judge misdirected jury or gave inadequate directions as to the use of Crown expert evidence on the interpretation of text messages – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Unfair trial – Miscarriage of justice.  [2013] NZCA 129  CA 31/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2013.
Case name
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the  Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276  CA 395/2012
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
SAMUELA FALETALAVAI HELU v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2015] NZSC 28 [26 March 2015] (PDF, 596 KB)
Transcription

Hearing date : 4 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are:

(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?

3 October 2013

_______________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved.  Application may be made in writing if necessary.

26 March 2015
Case name
C  v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.[2013] NZHC 1900     CRI 2012 009 11872
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHAPMAN v R [2013] NZSC 83 [23 August 2013] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 August 2013
Case name
Mark Heteraka v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Identification evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 45(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act.[2013] NZHCA 339   CA 592/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 November 2013. 
Page 10 of 23