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
Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 81/2013
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 864/2012
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)
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.  [2013] NZHC 1992    CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted.  The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:

(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement?  This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.

(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment?  This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach.  Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.

18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. 
Costs are reserved.
(a)    By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b)     The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
Case name
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992   CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs. 
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
Hearing

19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

 
Dates

The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted.  The question of law for determination on the appeal is:

Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?

18 October 2013.
Case name
CT v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient consideration to ss 25(a) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in deciding that no miscarriage of justice had arisen because of delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the significance of the evidence unavailable to the defendant because of the time that had elapsed between the offending and the criminal proceedings.  [2013] NZCA 383   CA 188/2013
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.  

9 December 2013
_______________

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.

30 October 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 April 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, , Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Wiremu Kingi v Jillian Naera and others
Case number
SC 95/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 3(a) of the Trust Order by finding that it empowered the trustees to enter into the Tikitere Project without reference to the owners of the land – Alternatively, if the interpretation of cl 3(a) given by the courts below is correct, whether it was within the power of the Maori Land Court to issue such a Trust Order under s 226(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. NZCA 353  CA 542/2011
Result
A The application by Jillian Naera, Kereama Pene, Anaha Morehu, Warwick Morehu    and Eric Hodge for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is declined.
B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted.  The questions for determination on the appeal are:

1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?
2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?

C No order for costs on the applications is made. 19 May 2014 __________________ A  The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment. B  The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust). C  The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment. 20 May 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
PIRIHIRA FENWICK, WIREMU KINGI AND HIWINUI HEKE v JILLIAN NAERA, KEREAMA PENE, ANAHA MOREHU, WARWICK MOREHU AND ERIC HODGE [2015] NZSC 68 [20 May 2015] (PDF, 559 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18  November 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ
Case name
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific  Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited
Case number
SC 103/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal –  Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000.   [2013] NZCA 386   CA 758/2012
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013

___________________

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

5 November 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 August 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as trustees of the Appleton Family Trust and John Appleton.
Case number
SC 108/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the issue of causation in particular  whether, if properly advised, the applicant would nevertheless have entered the transaction.[2013] NZCA 420   CA 858/2011
Result
A. Leave to appeal is granted.
 B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
 
 18 November 2013 ________________________ A    The appeal is allowed.
B    The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C    The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated.  If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment. 19 February 2015
Substantive judgment
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as Trustees of the Appleton Family Trust [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1  July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Case name
David Neil Balfour  v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible.  [2013] NZCA 429   CA 445/2012
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.
Case name
Daryl Kirsty Reid Balfour   v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible.  [2013] NZCA 429   CA 444/2012
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.
Case name
K   v The Queen
Case number
SC 113/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the evidence of the taped conversation was wrongly admitted at trial.[2013] NZCA 430   CA 106/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 February 2014.
Page 40 of 68