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
FMB   v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial – Cultivation of Cannabis – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9 – Breach of implied licence by police officer – Trespass – Evidence of cultivation obtained in the course of illegal search of property –Admission of improperly obtained evidence under Crimes Act 1961, s 379AB – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that exclusion of the improperly obtained evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety given the moderately serious breach of applicant’s rights and seriousness of the offending – Whether Court of Appeal correctly took into account the maximum penalty for the offence rather than the likely penalty the applicant would receive in their assessment of whether the offending was serious – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admission of evidence is a substantial miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 258   CA 66/2013
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

26  November 2014.
Case name
Jennings Roadfreight Limited (in liquidation) and Boris van Delden and Roy Horrocks as liquidators v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 118/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the trust created by s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 did not come to an end upon liquidation.[2013] NZCA 455  CA 432/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground for appeal is whether:
(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or
(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.

14 February 2014

_________________

The appeal is allowed.  The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.
Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.

7 November 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 10 June 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Case number
SC 120/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard. [2013}NZCA 471  CA 127/2013
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question:

Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)?

26 February 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 11 November 2014

McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan,  Blanchard  JJ.
Case name
Firm PI 1 Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited and Body Corporate 398983
Case number
SC 141/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Earthquake Commission Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the clause in the insurance policy providing that the respondent’s liability would be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the cover under the Earthquake Commission Act limited the respondent’s liability for natural disaster damage from a single event to the difference between the maximum cover under the Act and the sum insured.[2013] NZCA 560  CA 3933/2013
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

17 March 2014

__________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements.  We certify for two counsel.

15 October 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 3 July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Case name
LM v The Queen
Case number
SC 143/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 132 and 144A – Whether the offences in s 132 of the Crimes Act 1961 require physical contact with a child and a desire for sexual gratification – Whether New Zealand has the power to legislate against conduct beyond its own territory, in particular where the conduct is lawful in the place where it occurs – Whether or not the evidence justified the applicant’s convictions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s guilty plea -  [2013] NZCA 145    CA 217/2012
Result

Leave to appeal against conviction on the charge under s 144A of the Crimes Act 1961 is granted.  

The approved ground of appeal is whether s 144A criminalises offending as a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act.

The application to appeal against conviction on the charge under ss 131A and 145A of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 is dismissed.

20 February 2014

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

13 August 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 June 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited and others
Case number
SC 8/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – High Court Rules, r 5.49 – The respondents sought to set aside a High Court judgment, holding that a forestry investment structure was created for the dominant purpose of tax avoidance and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on the basis that the Commissioner presented a false case to the Court by failing to disclose that another provision of the Income Tax Act 1994 was applicable – This was raised on appeal before the Supreme Court which refused to hear the argument – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding – In the alternative, whether the proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.[2011] NZCA  638  CA 152/2010, CA 204/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:

(i) whether the Commissioner’s challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49; and
(ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.

29 February 2012

_____________________________
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Shane Daniel Hannigan  v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011  [2012] NZCA 133
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. 

30 May 2012

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

26 April 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 October 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Richard Grant Simpson & Timothy Wilson Downes as receivers of Capital + Merchant Investments Limited (In Receivership) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 30/2012
Summary
CA 361/2011  [2012] NZCA 126
Dates

We grant leave to appeal.

The approved question is:

Were the applicants required to pay the GST on the sales to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue?

25 July 2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
23 October 2012.
Case name
Manukau Golf Club Incorporated v Shoye Venture Limited
Case number
SC 36/2012
Summary
 CA  747/2011  [2012] NZCA154
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was wrong:

(i) to make no order for costs in respect of the appeal; and
(ii) to give no reasons.

19 July 2012

________________________

The appeal is allowed. 
The respondent must pay to the appellant, with respect to costs in the Court of Appeal, costs of $12,220, plus disbursements of $5,051.73. 
By agreement, no order as to costs in this Court. 

4 December 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 4 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Page 41 of 68