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.

11 July 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)

All years

Case name
James Patrick Gollan v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction and sentence – Crimes Act, ss 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no basis that the applicant was acting in defence of his home or property under s 55 or s 56 of the Crimes Act – Whether the force used was reasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to not allow a police job sheet to be admitted by putting it to a person who was not the author of it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to exclude an article from the Police Association journal – Whether the applicant had adequate facilities and opportunities to prepare a defence – Whether District Court judges should be required to minute all decisions relating to rulings within a trial.[2013] NZCA 29   CA580/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 56 [11 June 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 125 [18 November 2013] (PDF, 31 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2013.
Case name
Grace Riana Boagey v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Assault with a weapon; intentional damage; aggravated assault and refusal to permit a blood sample to be taken –¬ Disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence – Land Transport Act 1998, s 65 – Guilty plea following erroneous sentencing indication – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to quash guilty pleas and remit charges to District Court for appellant to replead and possibly a retrial.  [2013] NZCA 30   CA202/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38    CA526/2012 
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made? 

16 May 2013

___________

Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved

21 March 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 30 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust Inc and Friends of Matapouri Inc v Chief Execuitve, Land Information New Zealand  and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 31/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Cadastral Survey Act 2002, s 52 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to judicially review the Surveyor-General’ s refusal to exercise his power in s 52 of the Cadastral Survey Act to require correction of the cadastral survey data set – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to costs. [2013] NZCA 33    CA67/2011
Dates

Application for  leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013.
Case name
Worthy Redeemed (aka Lee Errol James Silvester) v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2013
Summary
Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit new evidence from Professor John Raine as it is alleged that the admission of this evidence might reasonably have resulted in different verdicts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the propensity evidence of Ryan Moore was admissible and that the trial Judge’s directions in relation to it were adequate.    [2013] NZCA 61   CA 408/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 June 2013.
Case name
Alesco New Zealand Limited and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2013
Summary
Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Tax Administration Act 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s funding transactions were “tax avoidance arrangements” in terms of the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the respondent’s tax reassessments of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the respondent’s reassessments in respect of the applicant were not in excess of the respondent’s powers under the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant took an unacceptable tax position in terms of s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant liable for penalties under s 141D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent was entitled to costs.[2013] NZCA 40  CA 53/2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

14 February 2014.
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  and other cases on tax avoidance:

(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;

(ii) the Commissioner’s application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;

(iii) the Commissioner’ s reassessments were a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers.
9 July 2013.
Case name
John Colman v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 34/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breaches of fair trial rights – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24–26 – Whether High Court correctly dismissed appeal against District Court decision striking out civil claims – Whether High Court correctly decided some claims constituted a collateral attack on criminal proceedings or were an abuse of process – Whether High Court correctly decided that some claims had no reasonable prospect of success. [2012 NZHC 1343   Civ 2011 488 723 , 724, 726,727
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2013.

Applications for recall are dismissed.
11 June 2013.

Further application for recall dismissed.
13 June 2013.
Case name
Barry John Hart and others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 35/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Powers of the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to adjourn the appeal pending an appeal that was filed earlier in the High Court challenging the legal entitlement of the Official Assignee to liquidate the second, third and fourth applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Official Assignee’ s argument that it had the function and powers to determine whether the appeal would be prosecuted by the bankrupt applicant[2013] NZCA 94  CA 729/2012
Additional document
HART v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD SC 35/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 77 KB)
Dates

 
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
Brooks Homes Limited, My Refund Limited and Stephen Cavell Brooks v NZ Tax Refunds Limited
Case number
SC 37/2013
Summary
Interim injunction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where an appellate court disagrees with a lower court’s finding that there is no serious issue to be tried, the appellate court is then entitled and required to carry out its own assessment of the balance of convenience and the overall justice of the case.[2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

21 June 2013.
Page 147 of 245