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.
11 July 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Roger Wilson Steele and Christine Lynne Roberts v Eleftarious Serepisos
Case number
SC 68/2005
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the vendor subdivider was entitled to bring the contract to an end or treat it as at an end because the provisions of s 225 of the Resource Management Act 1991 had not been fulfilled within a reasonable time - whether the vendor was obliged to give the purchaser notice of their intention to bring the contract to an end or allow the purchaser an opportunity fulfil the conditions of s 225 of the Act.CA 203/04 12 October 2005
Result
Leave to appeal granted to appellant and respondent. 15 February 2006 ______________________________ The appeal is allowed.
The cross-appeal is dismissed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
In their place we make an order for the entry of judgment in the High Court in favour of the appellants.
The appellants are to have costs in the High Court as fixed by that Court in the light of this judgment, and in the Court of Appeal the appellants are to have costs of $6,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court.
The appellants are to have costs in this Court of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of this Court. 4 September 2006
The cross-appeal is dismissed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
In their place we make an order for the entry of judgment in the High Court in favour of the appellants.
The appellants are to have costs in the High Court as fixed by that Court in the light of this judgment, and in the Court of Appeal the appellants are to have costs of $6,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court.
The appellants are to have costs in this Court of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of this Court. 4 September 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Jason John Cumming v The Queen
Case number
SC 72/2005
Summary
Criminal appeal - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding an accused should be allowed to invoke right of self-representation where their decision was "fully informed and deliberate" whether the trial judges summing up and other interventions during the course of the trial led to a miscarriage of justice.CA 43/03 2 November 2005.
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
27 March 2006
_____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed. New trial ordered.
15 May 2008
27 March 2006
_____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed. New trial ordered.
15 May 2008
Date of hearing
19 October 2006
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, Anderson and Gault JJ: substantive hearing: 28 February 2008
Media Releases
- mediarelease sc722005cummingvr 000 (PDF, 87 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
CUMMING V R SC 72/2005 [27 March 2006] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
CUMMING v R SC 72/2005 [15 May 2008] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Limited
Case number
SC 73/2005
Summary
Resource management - whether Court of Appeal erred in answering four questions of law - whether a subdivision consent application can be altered by the local authority, and granted subject to the alterations, as long as no prejudice arises to the applicant, other parties, or public - whether a consent can be granted subject to conditions more favourable than those applied for - whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that construction of road fell within s108(2)(c) RMA - whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that acquisition of centre part of road fell within s322(2)(a) Local Government Act 1974 - whether Court of Appeal erred in sending proceedings back to Environment Court.CA 210/04 11 November 2005
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 April 2006
_____________________________
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The appeal is referred back to the Environment Court to be determined in accordance with this judgment. Estate Homes must pay the Council costs in the sum of $10,000 plus reasonable disbursements. Costs in the other Courts are to be fixed by those Courts.
19 December 2006
4 April 2006
_____________________________
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The appeal is referred back to the Environment Court to be determined in accordance with this judgment. Estate Homes must pay the Council costs in the sum of $10,000 plus reasonable disbursements. Costs in the other Courts are to be fixed by those Courts.
19 December 2006
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 July 2006 (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Media Releases
- waitakerecitycouncilmediarelease (PDF, 108 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Westfield (New Zealand) Limited and Northcote Mainstreet Incorporated v North Shore City Council and Discount Brands Limited
Case number
SC 4/2004 SC CIV 4/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - resource management - application for consent for non-complying activity - whether a decision to proceed on a non-notified basis is extraordinary - whether the correct standard of review of such a decision is to be in accordance with traditional Wednesbury principles - whether the cautionary approach discussed in Bayley v Manukau City Council (1999) NZLR 568 should be adopted in non-notification decisions - whether there was sufficient material before the Commissioners to enable them to conclude that the effects of the application would be more than de minimis. CA 30/04 14 June 2004.
Result
6 October 2004 Elias CJ; Tipping J Leave to appeal granted.
6 October 2004
________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is restored. The decisions made by the North Shore City Council (a) on 25 July 2003 not to require notification of the second respondent's resource consent application and (b) on 21 August 2003 granting that application are set aside. Costs in favour of the appellants are to be fixed by the Court following receipt of written submissions.
19 April 2005
6 October 2004
________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is restored. The decisions made by the North Shore City Council (a) on 25 July 2003 not to require notification of the second respondent's resource consent application and (b) on 21 August 2003 granting that application are set aside. Costs in favour of the appellants are to be fixed by the Court following receipt of written submissions.
19 April 2005
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 8 December 2004 (PDF, 685 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Richard Prebble and Ken Shirley v Donna Awatere Huata
Case number
SC 9/2004 SC CIV 9/2004
Summary
Whether distortion of "the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament" in terms of s55D of the Electoral Act 1993 was properly limited to conduct which alters a party's relative voting strength through defection - whether the belief of the leaders of the Act party that Huata had acted so as to distort the proportionality of Parliament was a reasonable one - whether, and to what extent, the scope of judicial review is limited in the context of ss55A-55D of the Act. CA34/04 16 July 2004
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
25 August 2004
_________________
A Appeal allowed
B Order of the Court of Appeal prohibiting delivery of the proposed notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives is discharged.
C Appellant entitled to costs in this and the lower courts.
18 November 2004
________________________
Costs to appellant in the sum of $15,000, together with disbursements of $2,000.
19 April 2005
25 August 2004
_________________
A Appeal allowed
B Order of the Court of Appeal prohibiting delivery of the proposed notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives is discharged.
C Appellant entitled to costs in this and the lower courts.
18 November 2004
________________________
Costs to appellant in the sum of $15,000, together with disbursements of $2,000.
19 April 2005
Transcripts
- Hearing 5 October 2004 (PDF, 305 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
Otago Station Estates Limited v John Robert Parker; and David John Parker and Lorraine Maree Parker.
Case number
SC CIV 6/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - method of payment of a deposit in a conveyancing transaction where notice of intention to cancel for non-payment of deposit has been given - whether payment in law requires legal tender or whether tendering a personal cheque is sufficient. CA 158/03 10 June 2004
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
12 October 2004
_____________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs in favour of the respondents are to be fixed following receipt of memoranda of counsel.
19 April 2005
12 October 2004
_____________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs in favour of the respondents are to be fixed following receipt of memoranda of counsel.
19 April 2005
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Hearing date : 12 October 2004
Gault J; Keith J.
Case name
Wynston Alexander Cecil Chirnside & Rattray Properties Limited v Richard Elmore Fay
Case number
SC CIV 7/2004
Summary
Civil appeal – commercial relationship for the purposes of property development – whether this gave rise to a joint venture of a commercial kind – whether a fiduciary relationship can arise where parties are negotiating towards a joint venture – whether in this case the parties owed fiduciary obligations to each other.
Result
A. The appeal and cross-appeal are each allowed in part.
B. The damages and interest awards made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
C. The judgment entered for Mr Fay against Mr Chirnside in the High Court is varied from $495,000 to $850,000 plus interest as awarded by the High Court.
D. Judgment is entered for Mr Fay against Rattray Properties Ltd for $850,000 plus interest in the same terms as awarded against Mr Chirnside. E. The caveat lodged by Mr Fay against the title to the Harvey Norman project is to be removed. F. Mr Chirnside is to pay Mr Fay costs in respect of the proceedings in this court in the total sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the registrar. The costs awarded to Mr Fay in the Court of Appeal are increased from $4,000 to $10,000. Costs in the High Court are to remain as fixed by that court. 6 September 2006
B. The damages and interest awards made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
C. The judgment entered for Mr Fay against Mr Chirnside in the High Court is varied from $495,000 to $850,000 plus interest as awarded by the High Court.
D. Judgment is entered for Mr Fay against Rattray Properties Ltd for $850,000 plus interest in the same terms as awarded against Mr Chirnside. E. The caveat lodged by Mr Fay against the title to the Harvey Norman project is to be removed. F. Mr Chirnside is to pay Mr Fay costs in respect of the proceedings in this court in the total sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the registrar. The costs awarded to Mr Fay in the Court of Appeal are increased from $4,000 to $10,000. Costs in the High Court are to remain as fixed by that court. 6 September 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Union House Limited and Union House Lease Limited v Auckland City Council.
Case number
SC CIV 11/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - contract interpretation - whether contract unassignable because of the existence of a confidentiality clause prohibiting disclosure of the terms of the agreement - whether the assignment was ineffective where the assigning party breached the confidentiality clause - whether the case should have been remitted back to the High Court to determine whether the pleadings could be amended to allege a breach of the confidentiality clause.
CA162/03 11 August 2004
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
15 December 2004
___________________
Appeal Hearing Date
22 March 2005
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
23 March 2005
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ahmed Zaoui v The Attorney-General, The Superintendent, Auckland Remand Prison and Human Rights Commission.
Case number
SC CIV 13/2004
Summary
Habeas Corpus - application for Habeas Corpus or bail under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court where the applicant is detained on the basis of a security risk certificate issued pursuant to Part 4A Immigration Act 1987. CA166/04 17 September 2004 PDF 258kb
Result
14 October 2004. Gault J; Keith J. Leave to appeal granted.
14 October 2004
______________________________
Declaration that there is jurisdiction to grant bail and to vary warrant. Court to reconvene on Thursday 9 December 2004 to hear further argument.
25 November 2004
_______________
Bail allowed on conditions 9 December 2004
14 October 2004
______________________________
Declaration that there is jurisdiction to grant bail and to vary warrant. Court to reconvene on Thursday 9 December 2004 to hear further argument.
25 November 2004
_______________
Bail allowed on conditions 9 December 2004
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 and 11 November 2004 (PDF, 437 KB)
- Hearing date 9 December 2004 (PDF, 105 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Attorney-General v Ahmed Zaoui, Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, and Human Rights Commissioner
Case number
SC CIV 19/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - judicial review of the standard to be applied by Inspector General in reviewing a security risk certificate issued under Part A of the Immigration Act 1997 in respect of a refugee who is said to be a threat to national security - whether Inspector General required to take into consideration New Zealand's international obligations, including but not limited to, the Refugee Convention - if so, what standard of risk does international law require before certificate can be confirmed. CA20/04 19 November 2004
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
3 February 2005
_______________________
The first respondent is granted leave to cross appeal. The declarations made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The Court makes the following declarations: 1. Those applying article 33.2 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 under Part 4A of the Immigration Act 1987 are to apply it in its own terms. In particular, to come within article 33.2, the person in question must be thought on reasonable grounds to pose a serious threat to the security of New Zealand; the threat must be based on objectively reasonable grounds and the threatened harm must be substantial. 2. In carrying out his function under Part 4A of the Immigration Act the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is concerned only to determine whether the relevant security criteria - here s 72 and article 33.2 - are satisfied. He is not to determine whether Mr Zaoui is subject to a threat which would or might prevent his removal from New Zealand. To the extent that the above declarations differ from those made by the Court of Appeal, the appeal and the cross-appeal are allowed.
21 June 2005
3 February 2005
_______________________
The first respondent is granted leave to cross appeal. The declarations made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The Court makes the following declarations: 1. Those applying article 33.2 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 under Part 4A of the Immigration Act 1987 are to apply it in its own terms. In particular, to come within article 33.2, the person in question must be thought on reasonable grounds to pose a serious threat to the security of New Zealand; the threat must be based on objectively reasonable grounds and the threatened harm must be substantial. 2. In carrying out his function under Part 4A of the Immigration Act the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is concerned only to determine whether the relevant security criteria - here s 72 and article 33.2 - are satisfied. He is not to determine whether Mr Zaoui is subject to a threat which would or might prevent his removal from New Zealand. To the extent that the above declarations differ from those made by the Court of Appeal, the appeal and the cross-appeal are allowed.
21 June 2005
Substantive judgment
Appeal Hearing Date
12 and 13 April 2005
Judgment appealed from
Page 67 of 68