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
20 January 2015.
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 payable to the respondent.
27 August 2013.
Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 October 2013.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements. 14 November 2013
- MR [2015] NZSC 28 (PDF, 251 KB)
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
- MR [2014] NZSC 153 (PDF, 262 KB)
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 August 2013Application for leave to appeal is refused.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 November 2013.