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
Warren Bruce Fenemor v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of propensity evidence –That some items of evidence admitted were inadmissible propensity evidence – That the trial Judge’s directions on the use of that evidence were inadequate – That the trial Judge erred in preventing the appellant from demonstrating his account of the incident.[2011] NZCA 206  CA 457/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in part. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold, following R v Degnan that propensity evidence may be led by the Crown despite that evidence having previously been led at a trial which resulted in an acquittal.
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
sc 60 2011 warren bruce fenemor v the queen (PDF, 130 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 4 October 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Keith Allenby v H, Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board and Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 70/2011
Summary
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.30 June 2011.[2011] NZCA 251   CA 586/2010
Result
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLENBY v H SC 70/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLENBY v H SC [9 May 2012] (PDF, 310 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

A. Leave to appeal is granted. 
B. The approved grounds are: 
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

26 August 2011

_________________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Otehei Bay Holdings Limited and Explore NZ (2004) Limited v Fuller Bay of Islands Limited, Intercity Group (NZ) Limited and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 85/2011
Summary
Civil – Reserves and Domains Act 1953 – Reserves Act 1977 – Conservation Act 1987, Part 3B – That the appellants’ lease was not brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 when the Crown acquired Urupukapuka Island (where the appellant’s leasehold is situated) as a recreation reserve – That s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977 does not apply to the appellants’ lease, and no concession under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 is required to render the appellant’ s lease lawful.[2011] NZCA 300    CA 57/2010, CA 684/2010
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved grounds of appeal are:
(i) Was the lease at Otehei Bay brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 upon the Crown’ s acquisition of Urupukapuka Island as a recreation reserve in 1970?
(ii)  Does s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, as inserted by the Reserves Amendment Act 1996, apply to the lease at Otehei Bay?
C The approved grounds are intended to comprehend the sub issues referred to in the submissions of the third respondent dated 15 September, namely:
(i) Is the lease a perpetually renewable lease which has been extended since its creation, or is it one where a new lease has been entered into each time it has been extended or renewed?
(ii)  What is the effect of the 10 to 15 year period where the lease may not have been renewed by the parties?

29 September 2011.
Hearing

Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.

26 July 2012.
Case name
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc v Sheppard Industries Ltd and Avanti Bicycle Company Ltd
Case number
SC 91/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Scope of privilege for settlement negotiations or mediation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 57 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal gave proper effect to the mediation agreement and confidentiality agreement between the parties – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents could adduce particular affidavit evidence and evidence of what occurred during the course of mediation.[2011] NZCA 346 CA 805/2010
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the respondents are precluded by the terms of the mediation agreement and/or the confidentiality agreement from adducing the disputed evidence.

12 October 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012: 
Judgment recalled and reissued.  A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 April 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
James Joseph Kapa v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 504 CA 407/2010 CA 572/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the sentence of reparation only.
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

 

7 February 2012

____________________________

Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.

20 December 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 August 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook J.
Case name
Michael Andrew Keith Hastie  v The Queen
Case number
SC 120/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge should have given a Papadopoulos direction.[2011] NZCA 498   CA 153/2011
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds of appeal are whether the directions given to the jury before it delivered its verdicts were appropriate and, if not, whether this gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice?

9 February 2012

_______________________

Appeal dismissed.

23 July 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ
Case name
Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc and others v OCS Limited
Case number
SC 124/2011
Summary
Employment – Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 69N(3) and 69O – Relationship between the Act and the parties’ (collective) employment agreement – Express exclusion of monetary compensation for redundancy by terms of agreement, with alternative forms of entitlement also provided for – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellants are not entitled to seek (bargain for) appropriate redundancy entitlements under the Act  [2011] NZCA 597  CA 865/2010
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are whether, and if so to what extent, the multi-employer collective employment agreement precludes the second appellants from bargaining for redundancy entitlements under s 69N of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

28 February 2012

_________________________

The appeal is allowed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
The orders made by the Employment Court are reinstated. 

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 26 July 2012

Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Ross Nathan v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Attempt to adduce fresh evidence – Whether evidence of the complainant allegedly being in a sexual relationship at the time that the offence was committed was relevant to the complainant’ s reliability and credibility – Whether failure to adduce that evidence resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.[2011] NZCA 578  CA 318/2011
Dates
Hearing
Page 46 of 68