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
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited, Sealord Limited and others
Case number
SC 40/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Fisheries Act 1996 – statutory interpretation issues arising from review of Minister of Fisheries’ exercise of statutory power to fix the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) – interpretation of the relationship between s 8 (providing that purpose of Act is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability) and s 21 (providing for matters which the Minister must take into account in setting the Total Allowable Catch) – specifically, whether the TAC and TACC decisions can be characterised as sustainability and utilisation decisions respectively – whether a “global approach” should be taken to the purpose provision whereby it is a guide to government policy that decision-makers are to bear in mind generally, or whether the provision contains mandatory relevant considerations to be taken into account in relation to individual decisions – how the purpose of enabling people to “provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing” in s 8(2) is to be interpreted – whether the common law right to fish extends to commercial fishers.[2008] NZCA 160 CA 163/07 11 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
Media Releases
- big game fishing press release (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcription
Case name
David McAlister v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 49/2008
Summary
Civil – Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the demotion of the appellant as flight instructor did not breach a prohibited ground of discrimination, namely his age, in terms of s 104(1) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that flight instructors under the age of 60 and performing the same work as the appellant were not a relevant comparator group for the purposes of ss 104(1)(a) and (b) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that being of a particular age was a genuine occupational qualification for the appellant’s employment as a flight instructor in terms of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.[2008] NZCA 264 CA 216/07 30 July 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing 25 and 26 March 2009 (PDF, 530 KB)
Media Releases
- press dm (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Shane Huia Matenga v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961 s 385(1) – applicant was convicted of rape and unlawful sexual connection – at trial, inadmissible expert opinion evidence was given as to the central issue of consent – on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, while there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice under s 385(1)(c), the proviso should be applied as no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred – whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct principles in deciding to apply the proviso – whether the finding that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice is incompatible with the holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred.[2008] NZCA 260 CA 216/07 28 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
MATENGA v R SC 50/2008 [20 October 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
20 October 2008.
20 October 2008.
Result
Appeal allowed. New Trial ordered.
13 March 2009.
Case name
Wiilie Ye, Candy Ye and Tim Ye v Minister of Immigration and Yueing Ding
Case number
SC 53/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of an overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appropriate relief was to remit the matter of the Immigration Service to be reconsidered “if it sees fit”.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 184/2006
Media Releases
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Roderick William Nielsen v Dysart Timbers Limited
Case number
SC 54/2008
Summary
Civil – Costs – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied an objective test to the issue of whether the appellant intended a settlement offer to remain open for acceptance after the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal.[2008] NZCA 280 CA 630/07 6 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- media release nielsen v dysart (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Tiny Intelligence Limited v Resport Limited
Case number
SC 55/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – damages – the High Court found that Resport Ltd fragrantly breached the copyright of Tiny Intelligence Ltd in several toys and awarded Tiny Intelligence Ltd $50,000 by way of account of profits – whether additional damages are available under s 121(2) of the Copyright Act where the Court has awarded an account of profits – whether the House of Lords decision of Redrow Homes Ltd v Bett Brothers Plc [1999] 1 AC 197 should be applied to the New Zealand Copyright Act.[2008] NZCA 281 CA 270/2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Alan Qiuand Stanley Qiu v Minister of Immigration, He Qin Qiu and Ziao Yun Qiu
Case number
SC 56/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 192/2006
Media Releases
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Shane Edward Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – section 25(b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether High Court Judge should have stayed the criminal proceedings after making finding of undue delay in bringing the applicant to trial – stay granted in relation to eight co-accused – whether applicant should have received same remedy.[2008] NZCA 296 CA 664/2007 12 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- williams press release (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [3 November 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [15 May 2009] (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334 CA 679/2008 11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- bujak press release (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Electricity Limited
Case number
SC 65/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – contract interpretation – interpretation of an Interim agreement to preserve gas supply until decision made as to the validity of a termination of gas distribution agreement between the Vector Gas Limited (“NGC”) and Bay of Plenty Energy Limited (“BoPE” )– whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interpreted the terms of the interim agreement as meaning that the repeated phrase “6.50 per GJ” referred to a bundled price for not only the quantities of gas supplied but also transmission and network costs associated with delivery of such gas, rather than to a gas only price – whether the parties had given their own meaning to the phrase “6.50 per GJ” in prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal artificially excluded from consideration the bulk of relevant prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the context of the agreement negotiations that the only other options for BoPE were cessation of gas supply or the giving of an undertaking as to market related damages – whether the Court of Appeal gave weight to unsupported and inherently implausible “reputational” speculation that NGC might not have pressed for a market comparable price in the interim agreement – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to reach a decision whereby NGC was worse off than if BoPE had given an undertaking as to damages – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is contrary business common sense and fundamental principles of contractual interpretation. [2008] NZCA 338 CA 679/2008 1 September 2008
Result
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay to the appellant costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the lower Courts are to be fixed by those Courts in the light of this Court’ s judgment.
10 February 2010
10 February 2010
Media Releases
- sc 65 2008 vector gas ltd v bope ltd media (PDF, 53 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted. Respondents application for leave to cross appeal refused. 11 December 2008.
Page 55 of 68