Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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.

27 September 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 27 September 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (127 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 27 September 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)

All years

Case name
Patricia Pickering  v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – jury directions – what duty does the Crown Solicitor have to inform the defence in a timely manner when the Crown proposes resiling from an earlier agreement not to offer propensity evidence – is it fair that defence consent to vital propensity evidence can be implied when the evidence and propensity issues were not raised by the Crown with either the defence or with the trial Judge – was the trial Judge’s direction to the jury in respect of inferences/circumstantial evidence adequate – whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from the Crown Solicitor’s use of emotive and inappropriate language in his closing address – whether the High Court should have permitted the “Lammie” evidence to be received as fresh evidence.[2012]NZCA 311  CA   546/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Further Evidence – Whether the Supreme Court should admit further evidence, including evidence from a witness called at trial and evidence from a police interview[2012]NZCA 339  CA  615/2011
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal’ s treatment of the affidavit(s) of H’s son, M, was correct.

28 February 2013
Substantive judgment
H v R [2015] NZSC 70 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 86 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 May 2015
Case name
New Zealand Dairy Processing Limited v Schenker (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 55/2012
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand – Companies Act 1993, s 290(4)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that management services were provided under a logistics and warehouse agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in implicitly holding that further terms could be imposed in relation to the provision of services by virtue of statements made in invoices issued after the terms on which the provision of services had been agreed – Whether the Court of Appeal set the evidential threshold for counterclaim too high. [2012]NZCA 343  CA  859/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 October 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 56/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for Costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold decision of Acting-Registrar to decline application to dispense with security for costs.CA  103/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

30 October 2012.
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not adjusting the earlier indicated sentence of the accused. [2012]NZCA 362  CA  249/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012
Case name
Tiroa E and Te Hapa B Trusts v Chief Executive of Land Information and others.
Case number
SC 58/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Overseas Investment Act 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had applied the correct test under s 16(1)(a) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had not taken into account irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had obtained reasonably adequate information to reach decision that s 16(1)(a) of the Act had been satisfied.  [2012]NZCA 355  CA  88/2012, CA 284/2012
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
 
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to both Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd and the Crown respondents.
17 October 2012.
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 59/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing a factual determination to be made without any admissible evidential foundation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining serious appellate litigation on the basis of hypothetical, conjectural or speculative actions to override the usual presumption of one trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the appellant without an application. [2012]NZCA 359  CA  796/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

30 October 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 60/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for Costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold decision of Acting-Registrar to decline application to dispense with security for costs.CA  422/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.  Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

1 November  2012.
Case name
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge.  [2012]NZCA 363  CA  616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part.  The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside.  The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B  In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C  In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D  The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
NEIL STUART JOHNSTON v CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK SCHURR [2015] NZSC 82 [12 June 2015] (PDF, 359 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2015

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Page 168 of 249