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
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 129/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 8 and 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a pre-trial ruling that certain propensity evidence was not admissible. 
Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                                                                      

8 February 2018 
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 132/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a judge has power to grant leave to the prosecutor to withdraw charges under s 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prior to a determination being made in the course of a pre-trial hearing under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as to a defendant’s involvement in terms of s 13(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge had not made any determination under s 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. 
Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                                                                       

7 February 2018 
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney General , Ngā ti Paoa Iwi Trust and Marutūāhu Rōpū Ltd
Case number
SC 135/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to strike out the applicant’s claim for judicial review – Whether decisions made by the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations regarding land proposed to be applied to Treaty of Waitangi settlements are reviewable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngᾱti Whᾱtua Ōrᾱkei Trust v Attorney General [2017] NZCA 554).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.                                                                   
23 March 2018 
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.  The claim is reinstated apart from paragraphs (e) and (f) of the declaratory relief sought. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
B The first and third respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.  We allow for second counsel.
C The costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.  If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and High Court respectively in light of this judgment.                              
17 September 2018
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 389 [9 March 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2017] NZCA 554 [4 December 2017]
Substantive judgment
NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY - GENERAL [2018] NZSC 84 [17 September 2018 (PDF, 521 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZSC 24 [23 March 2018] (PDF, 195 KB)
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603  CA 101/2015
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015]    NZCA 603).B  The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed.  Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.                                              
22 September 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
EDWARD THOMAS BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 127 [22 September 2016] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608   CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v MARWOOD & ORS [2015] NZCA 608 [17 December 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 36 [11 April 2016] (PDF, 63 KB)
Substantive judgment
KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 139 [26 October 2016] (PDF, 350 KB)
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i)  whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii)  whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2016] NZSC 21 [15 March 2016] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617  CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.  
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1481 [27 June 2014]
Court of Appeal decision
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 617 [18 December 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZSC 67 [16 June 2016] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 113 [17 July 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Acorn Foundation Trust and Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Independent Group Trust
Case number
SC 17/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for requests by beneficiaries for access to trust documents – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for review of a trustee’ s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision not to order disclosure of trust documents.  [2016] NZCA 7   CA217/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622).
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).  We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
ERCEG v ERCEG [2015] NZHC 594 [27 March 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
ERCEG v ERCEG [2016] NZCA 7 [4 February 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
IVAN VLADIMIR JOSEPH ERCEG v LYNETTE THERESE ERCEG AND DARRYL EDWARD GREGORY AS TRUSTEES OF ACORN FOUNDATION TRUST [2016] NZSC 69 [17 June 2016] (PDF, 9 KB)
Supreme court decision
Non-publication order dismissed: IVAN VLADIMIR JOSEPH ERCEG v LYNETTE THERESE ERCEG AND DARRYL EDWARD GREGORY AS TRUSTEES OF ACORN FOUNDATION TRUST [2016] NZSC 135 [14 October 2016] (PDF, 187 KB)
Substantive judgment
ERCEG v ERCEG [2017] NZSC 28 [8 March 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48  CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.                                                                                                                       

19 June 2017                            
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ not electronically available
Case name
AL v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.

19 June 2017                       
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Page 29 of 68