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
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2013
Summary
Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against sentence – Whether in light of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, which is expressly retrospective, prisoners with recognised intellectual disabilities who were sentenced prior to that Act entering into force are entitled to be resentenced and eligible for detention in intellectual disability care under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of that Act – Whether the appellant, as a prisoner with a recognised intellectual disability is entitled to the benefit of that law change and should, instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment, be detained in compulsory intellectual disability care – Whether the sentencing court and Court of Appeal failed to understand and consider the appellant’s intellectual disability[2012] NZCA 581  CA 162/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 April 2013.
Case name
Robert Keith Jeffries v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Sexual violation, inducing an indecent act, indecent assault – Mild mental retardation – Jurisdiction of trial judge to decide the question of fitness to stand trial in circumstances where he has taken over the hearing from another judge – Failure to provide adequate accommodations at the beginning of, and during proceedings – Whether use of the dock in criminal trials is lawful – Substantial miscarriage of justice.   [2012] NZCA 608  CA 742/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2013.
Case name
Independent Fisheries Limited and Clearwater Land Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 15/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery had exercised his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) for proper purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister’ s exercise of powers under the Act did not infringe the principle that the executive should not deprive persons of access to the courts without explicit statutory authority. [2012] NZCA 601 CA 438/2012
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants must pay by way of costs:
 (a) the sum of $4,000 to the first respondent; and
 (b) the sum of $4,000 to the second respondents –
 plus, in each case, reasonable

18 April 2013
ase Number
SC 15/2013
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
Jacob Adriaan Britz v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 4(1) – whether the Court of Appeal was incorrect to apply the high threshold set out in SR v R [2011] NZCA 409 in circumstances where the applicant was seeking retrospectively to assert incompetence.[2012] NZCA 606  CA 161/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Case name
Max John Beckham v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2012] NZCA 603  CA 608/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is:
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?  
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
Media Releases
Supreme court decision
MAX JOHN BECKHAM v R [2015] NZSC 98 [7 July 2015 (PDF, 373 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 April 2014

Hearing date : 3 and 4 March 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others  v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604  CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: 
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?

 

15 April 2013

________________

The appeal is allowed.

The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614  CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted.  The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A  The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B  The cross appeal is dismissed.
C  The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014 
_______________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 SC 20/2013 [3 May 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 137 [9 October 2014] (PDF, 330 KB)
Recall judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 178 [5 December 2014] (PDF, 86 KB)
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others 
Case number
SC 21/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal.   [2012] NZCA 604  CA 841/2011
Result
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.

The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013.
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is: 

 Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?

15 April 2013.
Hearing

17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 22/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) and s 61A(3) – Security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not reviewing the decision made by a single judge in that Court.[2013] NZCA 5  CA 855/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.
Page 145 of 244