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
West City Construction Limited v Henry David Levin and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of St George Developments Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 43/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no agreement to assign and/or equitable assignment of the bond monies – Whether the deed of assignment enabled the applicant to receive more towards the satisfaction of debt than it would receive or be likely to receive in the debtor’s liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the sum payable under s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.[2014] NZCA 98 CA 101/2013
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Levin v West City Construction [2014] NZCA 98).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.
B The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.
B The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 November 2014 (PDF, 462 KB)
Media Releases
- sc43 2014 westcityconstructionvlevinanor press (PDF, 192 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Pravin Fia Havi Prasad Kumar v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice through his contact with a rape complainant. [2014] NZCA 116 CA 575/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 August 2014
12 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case Number
SC 44/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bruce James King v ASB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 45/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’ s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 102 CA 810/2013
Result
A The application for a stay of the determination of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
28 July 2014
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
28 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case Number
SC 45/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John David Wright v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in principle – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly categorised the offending as within band three of Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39 – Whether the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to the sentencing hierarchy, the principles of sentence indication and other matters.[2014] NZCA 119 CA 831/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DAVID WRIGHT v R [2014] NZSC 87 7 July 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 46/2014
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications Limited
Case number
SC 47/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the claim for judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in directing the Registrar not to accept the documents for filing – Whether or not the District Court judge erred in dismissing the claim for breach of copyright – Whether the orders for costs that resulted in bankruptcy were properly made – Whether or not the principles of res judicata are applicable
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 2014
________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
25 June 2014
_____________________________________
Further application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2014
20 June 2014
________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
25 June 2014
_____________________________________
Further application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case Number
SC 47/2014
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications Limited
Case number
SC 48/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the claim for judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in directing the Registrar not to accept the documents for filing – Whether or not the District Court judge erred in dismissing the claim for breach of copyright – Whether the orders for costs that resulted in bankruptcy were properly made – Whether or not the principles of res judicata are applicable.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 2014
_____________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
25 June 2014
___________________________
Further application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2014
20 June 2014
_____________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
25 June 2014
___________________________
Further application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Alan Canavan v Damien Grant and Stevcen Khov as liquidators of Quantum Grow Limited in liquidation.
Case number
SC 49/2014
Summary
[2014] NZCA 127 CA 399/2013
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
4 July 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
4 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson
Case number
SC 50/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally was not relationship property under ss 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(l) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally should not be treated, in the Court’s discretion, as relationship property, either in whole or in part, under s 9(4) of the Act. [2014] NZCA 117 CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2014 (PDF, 551 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 26 (PDF, 245 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Forivermor Limited v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 51/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that clauses 1.2 (b)(iv) and 5.1 of the Code of Banking Practice were not each incorporated into the finance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent did not breach the said clauses, in particular by the advance of funds on or about 9 September 2008 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant suffered no loss as a result of the action and/or inaction of the respondent.[2014] NZCA 129 CA 790/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $2,500.00 10 July 2014
Costs to respondent $2,500.00 10 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 52/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs to the respondent¬. [2014] NZCA 158 CA 855/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
15 August 2014
___________________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
25 February 2016
15 August 2014
___________________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
25 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Page 134 of 244