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
Alan Ivo Greer v The Attorney - General
Case number
SC 42/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment dismissing application for habeas corpus – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that habeas corpus not the appropriate remedy where applicant alleges denial of appeal rights – whether a denial of appeal rights caused by lack of information and availability of appropriate appeal forms to prisoners – whether a denial of appeal rights where Court of Appeal refuses to accept for filing appeals on obsolete or incorrect forms – delay in appeal rights. CA 5/06 22 May 2006
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Henkel Kgaa v Holdfast NZ Limited
Case number
SC 43/2006
Summary
Civil – copyright infringement – appellant, who was successful in High Court, a “world leader” in the industry using same copyright works throughout the world – whether Court of Appeal failed to take account of statutory presumptions in Copyright Act 1994, s 127 – whether Court of Appeal ignored relevant authorities and misapplied the tests for infringement of compilations and for work derived from admittedly infringing copies – whether Court of Appeal relied upon two erroneous findings about the appellant’ s case in the High Court, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice CA 248/04 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Zentrum Holdings Limited and Ngahemi Properties Limited v The Commmisioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 44/2006
Summary
Civil – tax administration – in Taxation Review Authority (“TRA”) CIR argued unsuccessfully that Zentrum had benefited by a tax avoidance arrangement – on appeal to High Court CIR sought to argue that relevant transactions were shams – whether jurisdictional bar to raising sham argument for first time in High Court – whether it would have been open to CIR to employ sham argument in TRA – whether CIR v VH Farnsworth Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 428 applies – whether sham argument is subject to time bar in Tax Administration Act 1994, s 108CA 215/05 23 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
19 September 2006
_________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Moshen Aghabiggi v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction for sexual violation, attempted rape, and fraud – whether applicant should have been granted an adjournment to call a witness overseas and to allow exploration of potential defence – whether delay in police disclosure of complaint form, and the fact that complainant had not made complaint until later than originally thought, resulted in a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge erred in directions to jury on defence to third count – whether overall a miscarriage of justice occurred.CA 408/05 31 May 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
AGHABIGGI v R SC 45/2006 [5 October 2006] (PDF, 16 KB)
Additional document
AGHABIGGI V R SC 45/2006 [17 April 2007] (PDF, 15 KB)
Case name
Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited
Case number
SC 46/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment on the application of s 28 Limitation Act 1950 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in either applying the wrong legal test, or applying the correct test wrongly – tort of deceit – whether the respondents’ claim for deceit was statute barred – meaning of “reasonable diligence” in s 28 – whether, with reasonable diligence, the respondent could have discovered the deceit.Cross-appeal – commercial joint venture – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the respondents’ action for breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded to the respondents – correct method of calculating damages for deceit.CA 232/04 1 June 2006
Result
A. Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Wali Javad Allahyai v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, dismissing appeals against conviction and sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – fresh evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting fresh evidence advanced on appeal to that court – further fresh evidence that should be admitted now – whether there was an unfair trial and appeal due to police conduct. CA 330/04 7 June 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ALLAHYAI v R SC 47/2006 [5 October 2006] (PDF, 23 KB)
Case name
Khyentse Rinpoche Lama v Ross Hope and others
Case number
SC 48/2006
Summary
Civil – religious purpose trust – lay trustees to be supervised by Karmapa (head of Karma Kagyu School of Buddhism) – appellant, not a trustee, appointed by Karmapa as spiritual director – longstanding, international dispute within School over identity of Karmapa’s new incarnation – Court of Appeal recognised non-justiciability of religious and spiritual issues – correct approach to interpreting and enforcing purpose trusts – whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting trust deed – whether trust deed gave appellant power to remove trustees – whether alternative application by appellant to remove trustees limited to Trustee Act 1956, s 51 or invoked the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to remove – the scope of that inherent jurisdiction – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that appellant had not alleged improper conduct or breaches of trust deed by trustees – whether reinstatement of trustees by Court of Appeal gave rise to an ‘impossible situation’ inimical to attainment of the trust’s objects. CA 51/05 CA 119/05 7 June 2006
Result
Applications for leave to appeal by both the appellant and respondent are dismissed, with cost to the respondent $1,000.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Susan Couch v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 49/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, striking out claims for misfeasance in public office and negligence – applicant surviving victim of attack in 2001 on Panmure RSA – Department of Corrections acknowledged errors undoubtedly occurred in the handling of attacker’s case – Attorney-General sued on behalf of Department of Corrections – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for negligence – applicant claiming assailant should not have been allowed or encouraged to work in an ‘inappropriate industry’ – whether Department of Corrections should have better monitored assailant – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for misfeasance in public office – whether restriction has been placed on state of mind requirement of misfeasance. CA 238/05 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 49 2006 susan couch v agfebruary 2009 (PDF, 317 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
COUCH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 49/2006 [24 March 2010] (PDF, 625 KB)
Additional document
sc 49 2006 susan couch v ag (PDF, 63 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Appeal adjournment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ronald Gerald Clark v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2006
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol – after failed breath screening test applicant handcuffed for duration of trip to police station – at station handcuffs immediately removed - applicant failed evidential breath test – whether handcuffing amounting to an arrest and, if so, whether the arrest was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether for the purposes of exclusion of evidence there was the necessary causal link between breach and the failed evidential breath test. CA 479/05 12 June 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 September 2006
26 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLARK V R SC 50/2006 [26 September 2006] (PDF, 16 KB)
Case name
Alan Ivo Greer v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2006
Summary
Criminal appeal – Bail Act 2000 - whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing application for bail pending hearing of appeals from convictions on driving and sexual offences – whether bail is necessary to obtain a fair hearing of the appeals. CA 161/03 CA 179/06 15 June 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 September 2006
26 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GREER V R SC 51/2006 [26 September 2006] (PDF, 21 KB)
Page 227 of 244