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
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited and others
Case number
SC 3/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extension of time – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and/or law – Whether the Court of Appeal displayed pre-determination and bias – Whether the Court of Appeal acted on wrong principle – Whether the Court of Appeal took irrelevant matters into account – Whether the Court of Appeal was plainly wrong.[2012] NZCA 565  CA 763/2011; CA 764/2011; CA 765/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar.  The liability of the applicants is joint and several. 

12 April 2013
Case name
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563  CA 635/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013.
Case name
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
PLANET KIDS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 5/2013 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
PLANET KIDS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2013] NZSC 147 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 333 KB)
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013

__________________

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent.  We certify for two counsel.

6 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law.  [2012] NZCA 576  CA 360/2012
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
Case name
Philip Joseph Fava v Aral Property Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 8/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether a court is permitted to entertain an application when the party making the application is represented by a lawyer (or a firm including a lawyer) whose conduct is in issue in the proceedings in a manner contemplated by Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 13.5.3 – Whether a lawyer’s conduct will be in issue in proceedings for the purpose of r 13.5.3 where the case before the court protects or furthers the lawyer’s own interests.[2012] NZCA 585  CA 500/2012
Dates

Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection.   [2012] NZCA 609  CA 650/2011
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b)  Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?

1 May 2013

______________________

A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent.  They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.

10 June 2014

___________________

Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.

29 September 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 5 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping J J.
Case name
Neal Medhurst Nicholls v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610  CA 624/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Case name
Wayne Leslie Douglas v The Queen
Case number
SC 11/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610  CA 623/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 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.
Page 144 of 244