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
MH v The Queen
Case number
SC 116/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act s 30 – pre-trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act.[2013] NZCA 432   CA 228/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN LESTER MACKENZIE v R [2013] NZSC 143 [10 December 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed

10 December 2013
Case name
Francis Thomas Dooley v Raymond Bruce Smith and Mohammed Shahadat
Case number
SC 117/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 428   CA 233/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FRANCIS THOMAS DOOLEY v RAYMOND BRUCE SMITH [2013] NZSC 155 [20 December 2013] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the first respondent.

20 December 2013. 

Case name
Jennings Roadfreight Limited (in liquidation) and Boris van Delden and Roy Horrocks as liquidators v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 118/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the trust created by s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 did not come to an end upon liquidation.[2013] NZCA 455  CA 432/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground for appeal is whether:
(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or
(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.

14 February 2014

_________________

The appeal is allowed.  The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.
Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.

7 November 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 10 June 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Ross Dallimore v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against sentence – Undischarged bankrupt carrying on management of a business – Insolvency Act 2006, ss 149(1)(a) and 436(1)(b) – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given that the applicant was allegedly not involved in financial management of the business.[2012] NZCA 437  CA 199/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROSS DALLIMORE v R [2014] NZSC 25 [25 March 2014] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 March 2014.
Case name
University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Case number
SC 120/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard. [2013}NZCA 471  CA 127/2013
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question:

Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)?

26 February 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 11 November 2014

McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan,  Blanchard  JJ.
Case name
CP Asset Management Limited  and others v Damien Grant and Steven Khov and others
Case number
SC 121/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the resolution was contrary to the interests of unsecured creditors and that the resolution caused prejudice to the second respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creditors may not get an adequate investigation into the affairs of the company if the replacement liquidators were to continue in office – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the resolution and in its interpretation of s 245A of the Companies Act – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly quantify and assess the extent to which the terms of the first respondent’ s position on funding was a specific benefit to the creditors in the liquidation and whether it misconstrued findings made a first instance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in basing its assessment as to the steps taken in the liquidation solely on the first report of the liquidators – Whether the Court of appeal erred by failing to recognise that related creditors have an interest in the liquidation and in giving primacy to the position of one creditor over the general body of creditors. [2013] NZCA 452   CA 67/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
C P ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v DAMIEN GRANT & STEVEN KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF NZ PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 11 [25 February 2014] (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicants must pay to the First Respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

The applicants must pay to the Second Respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 February 2014
Case name
John F Jackson v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 122/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – r 12.2 High Court Rules – s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 – summary judgement – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it was appropriate to make findings of dishonesty in the context of an application for summary judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was dishonest, and in reaching this conclusion, failed to consider relevant contextual and personal factors – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the liability for which indemnity was sought had arisen in connection with the applicant’ s dishonest acts – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its view of the applicability of s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act.[2013] NZCA 302  CA 274/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN FRANCIS JACKSON v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 12 [25 February 2014] (PDF, 57 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

25 February 2014.
Case name
Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.[2013] NZCA 525   CA 147/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BANBROOK v R [2013] NZSC 148 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.
Case name
Harmon Lynn Wilfred, Carolyn Ruth Dare-Wilfred, Angela Maree Smalley, La Famia No 1 Limited, La Famua BNo 4 Limited v Kaiwan Gan and Juzhen Zu
Case number
SC 124/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Interim order for immediate possession of property ­– Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for interim relief in circumstances where the application for interim relief effectively determined the outcome of the proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly determined that alleged breaches of head lease did not affect the balance of convenience – Whether appeal rights rendered nugatory by judicial conflict of interest.  [2013] NZCA 457   CA 184/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HARMON LYNN WILFRED v KAIWAN GAN AND YUZHEN YU [2014] NZSC 4 [18 February 2014] (PDF, 9 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.

18 February 2014.
Case name
Rujing Jin v North Shore District Court, Yasuki Konishi and Makiki Konishi
Case number
SC 125/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Practice and procedure – Proceedings – District Court Rules 2009 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’s decision to alter the mode of trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s direction that there would be no judicial settlement conference – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to adjourn the claim against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision on costs.[2013] NZCA 475   CA 168/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RUJING JIN v NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT [2014] NZSC 1 [12 February 2014] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,500  to the respondent

12 February 2014.
Page 155 of 244