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
Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited
Case number
SC 44/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid. [2013] NZCA 101  CA 178/2013
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.

17 July 2013

________

A The appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored. 
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.


5 September 2014
Transcript
Hearing date : 13 February 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages”  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130  CA 834/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares

11 October 2013

__________________

A The appeal is allowed.  The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
  B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.

11 August 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 20 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977   Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A     The appeals are allowed.  
B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  
D     Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 7 [18 February 2015] (PDF, 684 KB)
Case name
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited trading as Zurich New Zealand v Cognition Education Limited
Case number
SC 58/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the test for whether there is a dispute for the purposes of a stay application under Article 8 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 is whether there is an “arguable defence” and, as such, is the inverse of the test to apply for a summary judgment.[2013] NZCA 180    CA 867/2012
Result
Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that there will be no dispute for the purposes of art 8(1) of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 unless the defendant has an arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff’s claim as is sufficient to resist an application for summary
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
Transcripts
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2014] NZSC 55 [7 May 2014] (PDF, 156 KB)
Recall judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 369 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost :DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 138 [24 September 2015] (PDF, 119 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.
Case number
SC 66/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement.   [2013] NZCA 221  CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011;  CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.
Result
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
Dates

 Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds of appeal are:

(a)        In relation to the land use consent application:

(i)         Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;

Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and

What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.

(b)       In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:

The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or

The permitted baseline under s 104(2).

(c)        Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.

2 December 2013
Case name
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the  Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276  CA 395/2012
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
SAMUELA FALETALAVAI HELU v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2015] NZSC 28 [26 March 2015] (PDF, 596 KB)
Transcription

Hearing date : 4 March 2014

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

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are:

(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?

3 October 2013

_______________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved.  Application may be made in writing if necessary.

26 March 2015
Case name
Raeleen Rameka v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misstating the test in respect of withdrawal under s 66(1).[2011] NZCA 75   CA 131/2010
Result
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.

30 October 2014
Media Releases
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 KB)
Hearing
11 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
Case name
Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.[2012] NZCA 291   CA 811/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.

11 November 2013

______________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.

27 August 2014
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 March 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
Case name
Fences and Kerbs Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 80/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91   CA 773/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A    The appeals are allowed.  
B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  
D     Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 7 [18 February 2015] (PDF, 684 KB)
Page 39 of 68