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
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012
Result
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, New trial ordered.

19 November 2014
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.

20 December 2012.
Hearing

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.

Decision reserved.

Rehearing directed. 14 November 2013.
7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Barry Raymond Whitelaw v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether the appellant’ s sentence of two years, five months’ imprisonment was excessive – Whether the uplift of nine months applied to the appellant’s sentence to take account of his previous offending was in breach of the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in s 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2012] NZCA 438  CA 359/2012
Dates
Hearing
Case name
West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal Limited, Soli Energy New Zealand Limited, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated.
Case number
SC 75/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14 – Declarations sought in the Environment Court as to whether the effect of the combustion of coal, extracted from particular mining proposals, on climate change is a relevant consideration under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Matter heard by Environment Court and High Court – All parties agree to an appeal straight to the Supreme Court – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court.[2012] NZHC  2156   CIV 2012 409 972
Result

Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment, is granted. 

The approved ground of appeal is whether, under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the decision-makers in the consent proceedings were required or able to have regard to the effects on climate change of discharge of greenhouse gases arising from end use of coal that will be extracted if consent is upheld.

28 November 2012

________________

The appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.

19 September 2013
Transcript

Hearing dates : 12 and 13 March 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility
Case number
SC 80/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Applicant remanded in custody until his eligibility for surrender under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 has been determined – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take into consideration the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture under ss 8 and 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give authorities from New Zealand and the United Nations Human Rights Committee the intensive scrutiny they warranted – Whether the lawfulness of the application to extradite the applicant is a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application – Whether challenges to the applicant’s status as an “extraditable person” are a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application.   [2012] NZCA 471  CA 637/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the Courts below were correct to dismiss the proceeding because the alleged deficiencies in the request to surrender and the application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application.

16 November 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed. No order for costs.

20 December 2012
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 December 2012
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court  Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530    CA 756/2011
Hearing
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:

Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?

15 March 2013.
Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 

18 April 2013

________________

tc
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Jamie Ahsin v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Party to murder –Providing assistance to principal offender – Concept of withdrawal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that appellant’s actions could not amount to a withdrawal of assistance[2011] NZCA 75     CA 133/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to withdrawal in relation to s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.
11 March 2013
____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
AHSIN v R SC 96/2012 [11 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 KB)
Case name
Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 97/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a contentious or political purpose could not be a charitable purpose – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that purposes or activities carried on by the charity or its representatives or agents that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status even if only minor or ancillary.[2012] NZCA 533      CA 333/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Were the views expressed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment [2012] NZCA 533 at [55]-[68] and [96]-[97] of its reasons correct?

8 March 2013

____________________

A The appeal against the Court of Appeal’s determination that a political purpose cannot be a charitable purpose is allowed.                                          
B The appeal against the Court of Appeal’ s determination that purposes or activities that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status is dismissed.               
C The matter of the charitable status of the objects of Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc is remitted to the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Charities Board for reconsideration in light of this decision.
D No order for costs is made.

6 August 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
The New Zealand Māori Council and Waikato Rivers and Dams Claims Trust v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, The Minister of Finance and The Minister of State Owned Enterprises
Case number
SC 98/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for direct appeal – Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the New Zealand  Māori Council’ s application for review. [2012] NZHC 3338 Civ 2012 485 2187
Result

Leave to appeal, and to appeal direct to this Court, is granted.

The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.

_____________________

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

27 February 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 February 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc and another v Eric Meserve Houghton  and others
Case number
SC 100/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation periods – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees’ individual claims had been brought when the first respondent filed his claim on a representative basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees did not have to opt in to the proceedings before limitation periods expired in order to bring timely individual claims[2012] NZCA 545  CA204/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:

Are the claims of some or all of the shareholders represented by the First Respondent (Mr Houghton) time-barred by virtue of limitation provisions in the Limitation Act 1950 or the Fair Trading Act 1986?

8 April 2013

____________________

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the first respondent plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).  The appellants and the second and fourth respondents are liable jointly and severally for the costs and disbursements.  We certify for second counsel.

9 April 2014
Transcript

Hearing date : 15 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Page 43 of 68