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
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233    CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009   4  June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 63/2010 27 August 2010 (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 63/2010 [20 December 2011] (PDF, 282 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Justin Leigh Harney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 64/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 264   CA 194/2010  1 July  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved grounds are: (i)      Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal identification procedure pursuant to s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 2006? (ii)           If not, was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the circumstances in which the identification was made produced a reliable identification beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 45(2) of the Evidence Act? 13 August 2010 __________________ Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. No order for a new trial.
16 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
HARNEY V NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 64/2010 13 August 2010 (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from

 
Case name
D A Constable Syndicate 386 v Auckland District Law Society
Case number
SC 65/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – contractual interpretation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of an indemnity clause in the Auckland District Law Society’s standard professional indemnity policy, namely whether the word “negligent” should be read as qualifying only the word “act” in the phrase “negligent act, error or omission” .[2010] NZCA 237   CA 565/2008   8 June  2010
Result
Notice of Abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to  be dismissed.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved ground of appeal is whether the word “negligent” qualifies the words “error or omission” in the indemnity clause.

8 September 2010.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD [2015] NZSC 181 [25 November 2015] (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND MAXTED GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 61 KB)
Recall judgment
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [15 July 2011] (PDF, 40 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18 March 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010]  NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.  Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.  
19 May 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
INGRAM AND KNEE And Anor v PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMI TED SC 72/2010 [27 September 2010] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
INGRAM AND KNEE v PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMITED SC 72/2010 [10 May 2011] (PDF, 150 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 March 2011

Elias CJ,  Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
TMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling video evidence taken on private property during an undercover operation admissible.[2010]  NZCA 287  5 July  2010
Result

Appeal dismissed.

17 December 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

13 August 2010
Hearing

2 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010]  NZCA 324   26 July  2010
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

13 October 2010

________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

27 June 2012

 
 
 
 

 
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Rupinder Singh Chahil v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for kidnapping after joint trial with three others – appeal against sentence and conviction – statement of co-accused used in evidence against the applicant – the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence but declined to impose a sentence of home detention in place of imprisonment – Whether the applicant’s rights under section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (minimum standards of criminal procedure) were breached by the Crown’s use of the co-accused’ s statement at trial – whether the Court of Appeal failed to identify the extent and impact of the inadmissible material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider home detention as an option in terms of section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2010]  NZCA 331   27 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

28 September 2010
Case name
Chala Sani Abdula v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal - whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the adequacy of evidence called by the defence at trial and the Court of Appeal's refusal of an application to call further medical and scientific evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.[2010]  NZCA 332   28 July  2010
Result

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4 November 2010

___________________________________

Appeal dismissed.

1 November 2011
Transcript

Hearing date : 25 March 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Gary Maui Isherwood v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence of preventive detention - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time for filing an appeal against sentence.[2010]  NZCA 347   3 August  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

21 September 2010.
Page 49 of 68