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.
23 December 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
2017
Case name
Peter Brent Home Hubbard and Harley Haynes, and Oceanic Palms Limited v Kiwirail Limited
Case number
SC 82/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a decision of the High Court declining the applicants’ application for relief against forfeiture of a lease.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for a stay is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
6 October 2017
B The application for a stay is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
6 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
ESR Group (NZ) Limited v Ian James Burden, Plantation Grown Timbers (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited
Case number
SC 83/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, ss 35, 120 and 232 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second and third respondents were entitled to enforce copyright in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant infringed copyright by importation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $4,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondents. 20 November 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $4,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondents. 20 November 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript civil leave application hearing
Case name
Joanne Mihinui,Matatahi Mihinui and Tania Mihinui v Attorney General for the Ministry of Education and Westerman Property Solutions Limited
Case number
SC 84/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Residential Tenancies Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to appeal in respect of a possession order made by the Tenancy Tribunal – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The applications for leave to appeal and for a stay are dismissed.
C The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 10 October 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal and for a stay are dismissed.
C The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 10 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
E v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2017
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. 31 August 2017
Result
not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
Graham Thomas Rowe v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Rowe v R [2017] NZCA 316).
B The approved question is whether Mr Rowe should have been convicted.
12 October 2017
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The appellant’s conviction is quashed.
B There is no order for retrial.
21 June 2018
B The approved question is whether Mr Rowe should have been convicted.
12 October 2017
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The appellant’s conviction is quashed.
B There is no order for retrial.
21 June 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2018 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 55 (PDF, 364 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
GRAHAM THOMAS ROWE v R [2018] NZSC 55 [21 June 2018] (PDF, 394 KB)
Case name
Warren Charles Te Hei v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions about identification evidence were adequate.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
DB Breweries Limited v Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service
Case number
SC 88/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 20 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 October 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Sione (John) Uaine Moala v The Queen
Case number
SC 89/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the claimed failure of trial counsel and counsel in the Court of Appeal to pursue certain arguments amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
Result
Leave is granted for application for leave to appeal to be withdrawn without prejudice to the applicants entitlement to re-apply later. 5 February 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Angela Claire Shaw and Ian Alexander Shaw v Colin David Owens and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of Aluminium Plus Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 90/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the directors’ conduct amounted to breach of the duties imposed by ss 135 (reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care).
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited (In Liq) and Therese Anne Sisson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 91/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s decision putting Chesterfields Preschools Ltd into liquidation.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on one ground only (Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 326).
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 9 of 14