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)
2007
Case name
Campbell Robert Thom v Davys Burton
Case number
SC 62/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – negligence action against firm of solicitors – prenuptial agreement invalidly executed – as a result, property which was separate property under the prenuptial agreement was included in the matrimonial property division – whether the claim is barred by s 4(1) Limitation Act 1950 – whether the doctrine of reasonable discoverability applies, so that the damage was first suffered when the Family Court declined to give effect to the prenuptial agreement.CA 3/06 30 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. _________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
THOM v DAVYS BURTON SC 62/2007 [13 December 2007] (PDF, 18 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne Limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd) and Ors
Case number
SC 63/2007
Summary
Civil – strike-out – whether lower Courts erred in refusing to strike out cause of action in negligence – respondent company seeking contribution from applicant Council in proceedings against them arising from the Jody F Millennium grounding – whether Court of Appeal conflated negligence and statutory duty causes of action – whether there can be a duty of care to protect someone from loss arising from his or her legal liability for negligence – whether respondent entitled in these circumstances to claim that applicant owed parallel duties of care to other parties including the ship – whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding full costs against the applicant. CA 118/06 10 August 2007
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
19 January 2008
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
Jule Patrick Burns v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction for murder – whether verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether DNA evidence was properly admitted at trial.CA 152/2006 [2007] NZCA 308 23 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 March 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BURNS v R SC 65/2007 [5 March 2008] (PDF, 16 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others
Case number
SC 66/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disclosure of documents in tax avoidance litigation – Commissioner of Inland Revenue is challenging on grounds of sham and illegitimate tax avoidance several structured financing arrangements entered into by a number of banks – litigation is to proceed against each bank separately – whether, in litigation against each bank, the Commissioner can rely on documents associated with similar transactions entered into by other banks – whether such reliance is prevented by either s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the application of public interest immunity. CA 280/06 [2007] NZCA 356 CA 280/0621 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 October 2007 ________________________ The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
18 October 2007 ________________________ The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
ANZ National Bank Limited, UDC Finance Limited and Tui Endeavour Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 67/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disclosure of documents in tax avoidance litigation – Commissioner of Inland Revenue is challenging on grounds of sham and illegitimate tax avoidance several structured financing arrangements entered into by a number of banks – litigation is to proceed against each bank separately – whether, in litigation against each bank, the Commissioner can rely on documents associated with similar transactions entered into by other banks – whether such reliance is prevented by either s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the application of public interest immunity. CA 280/06 [2007] NZCA 356 CA 280/06 21 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 October 2007
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
14 April 2008
18 October 2007
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
14 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Lisa Kathryn Cropp v A Judicial Committee & Bryan Francis McKenzie
Case number
SC 68/2007
Summary
Civil – judicial review – respondents instituted disciplinary proceedings after applicant, a jockey, tested positive for controlled drugs – applicant invoking rights to bodily integrity, to avoid self-incrimination and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure – application of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether regulatory requirement that jockeys consent to random drug testing as condition of obtaining and retaining a jockey’s licence authorised by s 29 Racing Act 2003 – whether applicant consented to drug testing – whether prescribed procedure and requirements for drug testing lawful and reasonable.CA 203/07 [2007] NZCA 423 27 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
29 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the 2nd respondent
17 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
Attorney-General v X and Refugee Status Appeal Authority
Case number
SC 69/2007
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that where the particulars of a claim for refugee status disclose information relating to the possible commission of a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity (in terms of the international Convention relating to the Status of Refugees), the confidentiality requirements in s 129T of the Immigration Act 1987 prevent the disclosure of those particulars by refugee status officers, the Refugee Status Appeal Authority, and other relevant persons, to those who are concerned with the investigation, prosecution or extradition of any such crime – whether New Zealand’s international legal obligations require the opposite conclusion.[2007] NZCA 388 CA 166/06 5 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
14 December 2007
14 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media releaes
Case name
Ian Kenneth McMillan v The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against sentence – applicant sentenced to preventive detention in 1995 – unsuccessful appeal to Court of Appeal in 1995 – sought rehearing of appeal in 2005 – Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on rehearing – whether Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether New Zealand regime of preventive detention is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and/or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – whether Court of Appeal erred in not granting a declaration (R v Hansen (2007) 23 CRNZ 104) – jurisdiction in criminal case to grant declaration of inconsistency with NZBORA and/or ICCPR – whether preventive detention breaches ss 9, 22, 23 and 25 of NZBORA and/or arts 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 of ICCPR – whether treatment of applicant by New Zealand Courts has breached his rights under ss 25(a), 24(a), 19, and/or 22 of NZBORA – whether applicant was lawfully committed to the High Court for sentence – whether Court of Appeal erred in not substituting a finite sentence.[2007] NZCA 394 CA 110/05 7 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 11 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
E v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against sentence
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2007
11 December 2007
Page 7 of 10