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
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Limited & Kaimai Cheese Co Ltd
Case number
SC 38/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – the Commerce Commission made a final determination on 5 June 2009 that The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Ltd and Kaimai Cheese Company Ltd were both entitled to raw milk from Fonterra under the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commerce Commission determination – whether an entity can be entitled to raw milk even though the entity does not itself process the milk[2011] NZCA 67   CA 223/2010
Result
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 15 March 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [20 June 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [15 March 2012] (PDF, 79 KB)
Transcription

Hearing date : 14 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Phillip Purewa v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114   CA 874/2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.

6 May 2011

___________________

Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Trudi Paraha v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114   CA 871/2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.

6 May 2011

__________________

Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Tuhoe Lambert  v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114   CA 879/2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.

6 May 2011

________________________

Appeal is deemed to be dismissed due to the death of the appellant.
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Rangi Kemara  v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114  
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.

6 May 2011

______________________

Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:

(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?

(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?

(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?

6 September 2011

________________________

A The appeals are allowed.

B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.

C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.

D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.

E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.

F  Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.

9 August 2012

______________________

Recall judgment

Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.

F  The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.

G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.

H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.

11 December 1012
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Carol Margaret Down v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Applicant convicted of four counts of discharge of a contaminant under s 15 RMA – Whether s 15 discharge offences are infringement offences as defined in s 2(1) SPA and therefore required leave of District Court Judge or Registrar to lay informations under s 21 SPA and also s 78A SPA applicable – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find prosecution saved in any case by s 204 SPA and did not result in a nullity.[2011] NZCA 119  CA 819/2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 48 2011 carol margaret down v the queen (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 48 2011 carol margaret down v the queen (PDF, 154 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 29 November 2012
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000.  [2011] NZCA 132  CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 52 2011 lewis gaire herdman thompson v cir leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:

A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?

B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?

22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Mahana Makarini Edmonds v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Party offences – Section 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Appellant was convicted of manslaughter after Mr Pahau, one of his associates, killed Mr Niwa through a single stab wound inflicted by a knife - Whether the jury must be directed that knowledge of the possession of the particular type of weapon used in the commission of the principal offence is required under s 66(2).  [2011] NZCA 147  CA 588/2010
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 57 2011 mahana makarini edmonds v the queen leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 57 2011 edmonds v the queen (PDF, 201 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 6 October 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164  CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of  non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.  11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 58 2011 body corporate no 207624 anor v north shore city 1 (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Page 45 of 68