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
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614  CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted.  The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A  The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B  The cross appeal is dismissed.
C  The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014 
_______________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 SC 20/2013 [3 May 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 137 [9 October 2014] (PDF, 330 KB)
Recall judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 178 [5 December 2014] (PDF, 86 KB)
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others 
Case number
SC 21/2013
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 ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal.   [2012] NZCA 604  CA 841/2011
Result
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.

The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013.
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is: 

 Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?

15 April 2013.
Hearing

17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Ewan Robert Carr and Brookside Farm Trust Limited v Gallaway Cook Allan
Case number
SC 27/2013
Summary
Arbitration agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the legal test for severance, and in particular, whether essentiality is a factor or whether policy and part performance are the determining factors.  [2013] NZCA 11   CA437/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: 
Should the arbitral award have been set aside?
2 July 2013
__________________
A   The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of 9 May 2011 is reinstated.
B   The respondent must pay to the appellants costs in this court of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. 
C    The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in that Court and the High Court to be fixed by those courts.
20 June 2014
Transcripts
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38    CA526/2012 
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made? 

16 May 2013

___________

Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved

21 March 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 30 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Alesco New Zealand Limited and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2013
Summary
Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Tax Administration Act 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s funding transactions were “tax avoidance arrangements” in terms of the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the respondent’s tax reassessments of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the respondent’s reassessments in respect of the applicant were not in excess of the respondent’s powers under the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant took an unacceptable tax position in terms of s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant liable for penalties under s 141D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent was entitled to costs.[2013] NZCA 40  CA 53/2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

14 February 2014.
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  and other cases on tax avoidance:

(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;

(ii) the Commissioner’s application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;

(iii) the Commissioner’ s reassessments were a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers.
9 July 2013.
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65  CA 282/2012
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b)  whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel.

15 May 2013

____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

20 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 26 June 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Ifeanyi Jude Akulue  v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2013
Summary
Pretrial ruling.[2013] NZCA 84  CA 675/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:

Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?

8 May 2013

____________________

Appeal dismissed.

19 September 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages.  [2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed.  Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014   
_________________
A  The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Substantive judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2015] NZSC 34 [15 October 2014] (PDF, 421 KB)
Recall judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 33 [1 April 2015] (PDF, 342 KB)
Transcripts

Hearing 12 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Hearing date recall : 8 December 2014
Case name
MGY v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, in its pre-trial decision, had incorrectly widened the scope of ss 132, 134 and 2(1B) of the Crimes Act to include the conduct alleged against the applicant.CRI 2011 044 3042
Result
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is: 

Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable
in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?

2 July 2013.
Hearing
5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Bradley Matenga Kahui  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Parole Act 2002 – Whether the sentencing Judge erred in convicting and discharging the applicant instead of imposing a short sentence of imprisonment which would have ordinarily entitled him to credit for time served on remand.[2013] NZCA 124 CA 190/2013
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: was the sentence imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002?

14 May 2013.
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the p\appeal is deemed to be dismissed
16 May 2013.
Page 38 of 68