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 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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 86/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the main ground of the appellant’ s application for an order under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the relevant application was subject to the review of the Registrar – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Registrar was correct to conclude that the appellant did not meet the financial test – Whether the Chambers judgment will be an unsafe contradiction of prior directions given by the Supreme Court.[2014] NZCA 358 CA 173/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2014
9 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 87/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which has been the subject of an appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to indemnity costs – Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 350 CA 623/103
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Helen Elizabeth Milner v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the verdicts were unreasonable [2014] NZCA 366 CA 120/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
16 April 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 February 2015 (PDF, 189 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MILNER v R [2015] NZSC 38 [16 April 2015] (PDF, 94 KB)
Case name
Kung We Chen v Dilworth Trust Board
Case number
SC 89/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.[2014] NZCA 352 CA 79/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Accent Management Limited v Attorney-General and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy if a Judge attempting to calculate tax overlooks the direction in s EH 8(1) of the Income Tax Act 1994 that subpart EG and s DL 1(3) of that Act are not to apply, where failure to comply with them engages the Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights 1688 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to overlook the direction in s EH 8(1), whether in demanding tax or reviewing such a demand - Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 351 CA 541/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 91/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that they lacked jurisdiction to make the order sought under s 61A(1) – Whether the law requires that publicly recorded judgments be issued to dispose of such applications. Minute 28 August 2014.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 September 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
15 September 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 83 (PDF, 249 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157 [31 October 2014] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83 [17 June 2015] (PDF, 590 KB)
Page 138 of 244