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)
2015
Case name
Dinesh Kumar Manoharan v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial Judge had not erred in allowing certain evidence to be admitted, in particular low copy number DNA evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the verdict was not unreasonable.[2015] NZCA 237 CA5/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 October 2015
28 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tony Douglas Robertson v The Queen
Case number
SC 72/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that publication of the name and other suppressed information about the applicant would not be likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial if the appellant appeals successfully to the Court of Appeal against conviction and a new trial is ordered.[2015] NZCA 287 CA340/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 July 2015
28 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
not available online
Case name
John Gilbert Sturgess v Robert Mark Patrick Dunphy, Greymouth Holdings Limited and others
Case number
SC 73/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 174 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to not uphold the High Court order that the applicant’ s shares in the joint venture are to be sold at fair market value. [2015] NZCA 265 CA366/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 19 October 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tatyana Kondratyeva v The Queen
Case number
SC 75/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 266 CA6/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 December 2015
4 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 76/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept for filing an application for review. [2015] NZCA 276 CA 31/15
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 77/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s application to have an arbitral award set aside. [2015] NZCA 290 CA 130/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 78/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant and second respondent were estopped from denying that the first respondent’s interest in the relevant property was insured – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment.Civil Appeal/Cross Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent’ s first cause of action (a declaration that it was insured under the relevant insurance policy) was not appropriate for summary judgment.[2015] NZCA 283 CA 734/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are deemed to be dismissed. 18 September 2015
Case name
Barrie James Skinner v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 573/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC. In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Alan Ivo Greer v Ray Smith and Jack Harrison
Case number
SC 80/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeus Corpus Act 2001 – Whether High Court correctly applied Habeus Corpus Act. [2014] NZHC 326 CIV 2015-412-15
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 September 2015
____________________________________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
10 February 2016
21 September 2015
____________________________________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
10 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Page 8 of 15