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
JBG  v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2016
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 160/2015
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 160/2015 not available
Case name
JPC  v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2016
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 145/2015 
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 145/2015 not available
Case name
Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 32/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the applicant’s entitlement under the insurance policy issued by the respondent – Whether the applicant is entitled to relief from the parties’ settlement agreement under s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.[2016] NZCA 67  CA 400/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2016] NZCA 67).
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.
20 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.                                   
6 December 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1444 [24 June 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZCA 67 [14 March 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LTD v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 70 [20 June 2016] (PDF, 112 KB)
Substantive judgment
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 158 [6 December 2016] (PDF, 378 KB)
Case name
Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 35/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002.[2016] NZCA 117   CA 129/2016
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).  
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?       
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed.  Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
MARINO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZHC 459 [16 March 2016]
Court of Appeal decision
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 133 [15 April 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 52 [6 May 2016] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
EDWARD THOMAS BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 127 [22 September 2016] (PDF, 368 KB)
Supreme court decision
Costs: MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 148 [8 November 2016] (PDF, 76 KB)
Case name
Crocodile International PTE Limited v Lacoste
Case number
SC 47/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 7(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 7(1)(a) Trade Marks Act 2002. [2016] NZCA 111   CA607/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste [2016] NZCA 111).
B The approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court decision to set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks revoking trade mark 70068?

19 July 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed.  Registration of trade mark 70068 is revoked from 12 December 1999.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We certify for two counsel.
C Costs in the courts below should be set by those courts in the light of this judgment, if they are not able to be agreed.
21 February 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
Additional document
NZLII: Lacoste v Crocodile International Pte Ltd [2014] NZIPOTM 11 (19 February 2014)
High Court decision
LACOSTE v CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2349 [25 September 2014]
Court of Appeal decision
CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2016] NZCA 111 [11 April 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED v LACOSTE [2016] NZSC 88 [19 July 20 (PDF, 60 KB)
Substantive judgment
CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2017] NZSC 14 [21 February 2017] (PDF, 357 KB)
Case name
New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 48/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent’s appeal from the Employment Court was not barred for want of jurisdiction by reason of s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Court had wrongly applied or failed to apply orthodox principles of contractual interpretation. [2016] NZCA 131   CA570/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131)
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?
13 July 2016
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.  
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
Employment Court decision
NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 168 [11 September 2014]
Court of Appeal decision
AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2016] NZCA 131 [15 April 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 84 [13 July 2016] (PDF, 109 KB)
Substantive judgment
NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZSC 111 [14 July 2017] (PDF, 617 KB)
Case name
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 60/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondent’s smoke-free policy did not breach the applicant’ s rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2016] NZCA 184   CA524/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184).
B Costs are reserved.
25 August 2016
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
B v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2013] NZHC 1702 [8 July 2013]
Court of Appeal decision
B V WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2016] NZCA 184 [11 May 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
B (SC 60/2016) v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2016] NZSC 111 [25 August 2016 (PDF, 68 KB)
Substantive judgment
B (SC 60/2016) v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2017] NZSC 88 [14 June 2017] (PDF, 336 KB)
Case name
ASG v Harlene Hayne
Case number
SC 61/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter.  [2016] NZCA 203   CA703/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011?  And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
Employment Court decision
HARLENE HAYNE, VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO v ASG NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 208 [11 November 2014
Court of Appeal decision
ASG v HAYNE, VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2016] NZCA 203 [16 May 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
ASG v HARLENE HAYNE, VICE - CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2016] NZSC 108 [18 August 2016 (PDF, 112 KB)
Substantive judgment
ASG v HARLENE HAYNE, VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2017] NZSC 59 [3 May 2017 (PDF, 227 KB)
Case name
Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council
Case number
SC 68/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the limitation provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.[2016] NZCA 258   CA656/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258).
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed.  The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant.  We certify for second counsel.
 C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 2777 [10 November 2015
Court of Appeal decision
LEE V WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZCA 258 [15 June 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
OLIVIA WAIYEE LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 98 [3 August 2016] (PDF, 136 KB)
Substantive judgment
OLIVIA WAIYEE LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 173 [22 December 201 (PDF, 304 KB)
Case name
K v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2016
Summary
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. [2016] NZCA 259   CA115/2016
Result
Judgment released.
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.                                                        
16 August 2016
Judgments
Decision not available
Page 30 of 68