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
Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.     [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157 [31 October 2014] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83 [17 June 2015] (PDF, 590 KB)
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489   CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v SHIVNEEL SHAHIL KUMAR [2014] NZSC 166 [19 November 2014]
Substantive judgment
R v SHIVNEEL SHAHIL KUMAR [2015] NZSC 124 [6 August 2015] (PDF, 417 KB)
Case name
Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Avonside Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 118/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the insurance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that contingencies and professional fees could be taken into account in estimating the cost of rebuilding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take adequate account of the fact that the respondent had sold its red zone land to the Crown.[2014] NZCA 483   CA 520/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Avonside Holdings Ltd v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2014] NZCA 483).The question on which leave is granted is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the respondent was entitled under its insurance policy with the appellant to claim allowances for contingencies and for professional fees given that the respondent has elected to purchase a replacement property.
4 May 2015
_________________
A  The appeal is dismissed.
B  The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
22 July 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED V SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED CA520/2013 [2014] NZCA 483 [1 October 2014]
Leave judgment - leave granted
SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZSC 49 [4 May 2015] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZSC 110 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 187 KB)
Case name
Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 124/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014
Result
A   The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B   The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C   The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A  The appeal is allowed.
B  The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C  All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved.  Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
JIANYONG GUO, JIAXI GUO AND JIAMING GUO v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2015] NZSC 76 [3 June 2015] (PDF, 114 KB)
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 9 July 2015 (PDF, 577 KB)
Substantive judgment
JIAXI GUO v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2015] NZSC 132 [2 September 2015] (PDF, 122 KB)
Case name
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
PLANET KIDS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 5/2013 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
PLANET KIDS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2013] NZSC 147 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 333 KB)
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013

__________________

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent.  We certify for two counsel.

6 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection.   [2012] NZCA 609  CA 650/2011
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b)  Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?

1 May 2013

______________________

A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent.  They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.

10 June 2014

___________________

Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.

29 September 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 5 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping J J.
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction for sexual violation by rape – evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge had applied s 44 of the Evidence Act correctly in excluding certain evidence relating to the  reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. [2012] NZCA 602  CA 862/2011
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) in light of ss 7 and 44 of the Evidence Act 2006, the Judge should have permitted the applicant to lead all (or some) of the proposed evidence; and
(ii) the apparent inconsistency of the jury’s verdicts warranted the allowing of the appeal.
18 April 2013
Hearing
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Max John Beckham v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2012] NZCA 603  CA 608/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is:
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?  
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
Media Releases
Supreme court decision
MAX JOHN BECKHAM v R [2015] NZSC 98 [7 July 2015 (PDF, 373 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 April 2014

Hearing date : 3 and 4 March 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others  v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604  CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: 
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?

 

15 April 2013

________________

The appeal is allowed.

The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Page 37 of 68