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
Andrew John Caplen Beavis v Elizabeth Joy De Vere and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 43/2013
Summary
Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment indicates bias against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment contain irrelevant statements or statements not supported by the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal had proper regard to the decision of the Family Court judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in departing from analysis provided by accountants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s business arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there were special circumstance justifying a departure order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that retrospective orders may be made under the Child Support Act 1991, and in making such an order – Whether the Court of Appeal otherwise erred in its interpretation of the Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have regard to certain relevant considerations and had regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal accepted that s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 was available, and erred in doing so – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.[2013] NZCA 124  CA 190/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 together with reasonable disbursement payable to the first respondent.
19 August 2013.

Application for recall dismissed.

20 September 2013
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited
Case number
SC 44/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid. [2013] NZCA 101  CA 178/2013
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.

17 July 2013

________

A The appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored. 
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.


5 September 2014
Transcript
Hearing date : 13 February 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 45/2013
Summary
Recall of judgments – Whether the High Court’s decision erred in regards to the law governing the recall of judgments – Whether the Court of Appeal’s delay in processing the applicant’s appeal constitutes a breach of natural justice warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.[2012] NZHC 2802   CIV 2012 404 4128
Dates

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C  Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 November 2013
Case name
Napier Tool & Die Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited and others
Case number
SC 46/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Intellectual Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in equating respondents’ effort in devising their product with level of protection available under copyright law for respondents’ copyright works – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for breach of copyright by divorcing the substantiality enquiry from enquiries into objective similarity and causation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remitting proceeding to High Court for enquiry into damages and should have directed determination of respondents’ loss based on quantum evidence led at trial.[2013] NZCA 171  CA 271/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

12 September 2013
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 47/2013
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 131  CA 532/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 47 2013 102 2013 reekie v attorney general (PDF, 240 KB)
Recall judgment
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 98 [30 July 2014] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
The Attorney-General v  Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 48/2013
Summary
Application for judicial review – Legal Services Act 2011.[2013] NZCA 176  CA 606/2012
Dates

Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

21 June 2013.
Case name
Siuake Lisiate v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction – Inadequate directions by trial judge on s 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Expert witnesses – Breach of Code of Conduct for expert witnesses (Sch 4, High Court Rules) – Trial judge misdirected jury or gave inadequate directions as to the use of Crown expert evidence on the interpretation of text messages – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Unfair trial – Miscarriage of justice.  [2013] NZCA 129  CA 31/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2013.
Case name
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages”  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130  CA 834/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares

11 October 2013

__________________

A The appeal is allowed.  The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
  B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.

11 August 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 20 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977   Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A     The appeals are allowed.  
B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  
D     Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 7 [18 February 2015] (PDF, 684 KB)
Case name
Stuart Murray Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 52/2013
Summary
Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to hold that the High Court’s determination of the Chief Executive of the Department of Correction’s application for an extended supervision order was premature – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court did have a proper basis for making the extended supervision order.[2013] NZCA 144   CA 482/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 August 2013.
Page 148 of 244