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.
09 December 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 6 December 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 6 December 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
2017
Case name
Z v Z
Case number
SC 51/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making suppression orders.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 3 July 2017
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 3 July 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Z (SC 51/2017) v Z [2017] NZSC 102 3 July 2017 (PDF, 77 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2017
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.[2017] NZCA 166 CA71/2017
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
19 May 2017
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
19 May 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
(not available publicly)
Case name
Earl Raymond Hagaman v Andrew James Little
Case number
SC 53/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to claim the defence of qualified privilege in relation to allegedly defamatory statements made by him about the applicant – Whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
12 June 2017
Judgment appealed from -HC judgment
Case name
Chatfield & Co Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 55/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994, s 17 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has not created a legitimate expectation by publishing operational statements.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 August 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Torchlight Fund No 1 LP (in receivership) and NZ Credit Fund (GP) 1 Limited v Wilaci Pty Limited
Case number
SC 56/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a late payment fee was not an unlawful penalty.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 July 2017
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 July 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2017 (PDF, 207 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 198 (PDF, 331 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 11 October 2017 (PDF, 269 KB)
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 22 November 2017 (PDF, 162 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 58/2017
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. [2017] NZCA 211 CA563/2016
Result
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
3 July 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
(not publicly available)
Case name
Dennis Rangiaho Hohua v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 44 – Whether the Courtof Appeal was correct to uphold the trial Judge’s ruling that evidence of anallegedly false prior complaint by the complainant was inadmissible at trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2017
22 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Viliami One Fungavaka v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an appeal against conviction for murder – Whether charge under-particularised – Whether summing up defective – Whether Abdula v R [2011] NZSC 130, [2012] 1 NZLR 534 applied correctly.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 August 2017
16 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation
Case number
SC 61/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2017 (PDF, 505 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 6 of 14