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
William Duffield McKee v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 8(2) – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not mean that persons who are legitimately able to be prescribed cannabis for medical purposes should be able to grow the plant for this purpose, given the absence of lawful retail suppliers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not allow a GreenCross card holder lawfully to supply another GreenCross card holder with cannabis grown for medicinal purposes – Constitutional challenge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the courts cannot overrule, repeal, revoke, amend or not apply provisions of the law which are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or which contravene cl 29 of the Magna Carta 1297 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not misdirect the jury – Entrapment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the undercover officer did not go further than creating an “unexceptional opportunity” for the applicant to offend.[2013] NZHCA 387   CA 781/2012
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

14 November 2013.
Case name
John Douglas McKenzie v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act ss 8, 12A and 27(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “statement” in s 27(1) of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply the “co-conspirator’s rule” under s 12A of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable.[2013] NZHCA 378   CA 795/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is declined.

11 November 2013
Case name
CT v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient consideration to ss 25(a) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in deciding that no miscarriage of justice had arisen because of delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the significance of the evidence unavailable to the defendant because of the time that had elapsed between the offending and the criminal proceedings.  [2013] NZCA 383   CA 188/2013
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.  

9 December 2013
_______________

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.

30 October 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 April 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, , Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Save Kapiti Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 89/2013
Summary
Civil – Resource Consent – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 171, 104 – whether the High Court erred in determining that permitted activities and unimplemented resource consents do not fall within the scope of “environment” for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) – whether the High Court correctly applied the tests set out in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate.[2013] NZHC 2104     Civ 2013 485 724
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 89 2013 save kapiti v nz transport agency (PDF, 60 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

14 November 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 90/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 206   CA 362/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 90 2013 siemer v stiassny 1 (PDF, 52 KB)
Recall judgment
sc 90 2013 siemer v stiassny recall (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements as fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the respondents.

14 November 2013.
 
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General of New Zealand
Case number
SC 91/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal made material errors of fact and law in dismissing the applicant’s application to review the Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 391   CA 319/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZSC 116 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 68 KB)
Dates

A The application is dismissed.

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

14 November 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 92/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 390   CA 166/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY & ANOR [2013] NZSC 115 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 54 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

14 November 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Helen Diana Winkelmann
Case number
SC 93/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there is a right to apply under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 for review of a judgment reviewing a Registrar’ s decision regarding security for costs CA 712/20122
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 113 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.

14 November 2013
Case name
John Kenneth Slavich v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 94/2013
Summary
Civil – Security for costs – Whether it is in the interests of justice to waive payment – Whether Court of Appeal correctly declined to review the Registrar’s decision to require security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that applicant’s appeals had no merit – Whether Court of Appeal Judge had a conflict of interest.[2013] NZCA 356  CA 165/2013  CA 197/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZSC 130 [26 November 2013] (PDF, 53 KB)
Additional document
Applications for amendment of the judgment of 26 Nov 2013 and its recall are declined (PDF, 38 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 46 [1 May 2014] (PDF, 52 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.

26 November 2013.

The applications for an amendment of the judgment of 26 November 2013 and its recall are declined.

19 March 2014.

The application for recall is dismissed.

1 May 2014
Case name
Wiremu Kingi v Jillian Naera and others
Case number
SC 95/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 3(a) of the Trust Order by finding that it empowered the trustees to enter into the Tikitere Project without reference to the owners of the land – Alternatively, if the interpretation of cl 3(a) given by the courts below is correct, whether it was within the power of the Maori Land Court to issue such a Trust Order under s 226(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. NZCA 353  CA 542/2011
Result
A The application by Jillian Naera, Kereama Pene, Anaha Morehu, Warwick Morehu    and Eric Hodge for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is declined.
B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted.  The questions for determination on the appeal are:

1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?
2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?

C No order for costs on the applications is made. 19 May 2014 __________________ A  The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment. B  The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust). C  The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment. 20 May 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
PIRIHIRA FENWICK, WIREMU KINGI AND HIWINUI HEKE v JILLIAN NAERA, KEREAMA PENE, ANAHA MOREHU, WARWICK MOREHU AND ERIC HODGE [2015] NZSC 68 [20 May 2015] (PDF, 559 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18  November 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ
Page 152 of 244