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.
16 September 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 13 September 2024) – Cases where leave granted (122 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 13 September 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 124 KB)
All years
Case name
RSS v The Queen
Case number
SC 37/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to acquit the applicant. [2015] NZCA 4 CA 573/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
14 July 2015
B 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
14 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not available online
Case name
Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others
Case number
SC 38/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 30 (PDF, 404 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ronald Peter Rosenberg v The Queen
Case number
SC 39/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentencing Judge properly considered the amends made by the applicant since conviction, whether a reparation order of $400,000 was justified and whether there was a significant inconsistency between the sentence of the applicant and the co-offender. [2015] NZCA 97 CA 345/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 July 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 40/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. [2015] NZCA 78 CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 November 2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 53 (PDF, 242 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Ailsa Duffy
Case number
SC 41/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether Brown J erred in striking out the applicant’ s application for judicial review.[2015] NZHC 714 CIV 2014 485 11404
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
1 July 2015
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
1 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
P v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the conduct of the trial prosecutor did not amount to a miscarriage of justice[2015] NZCA 96 CA 672/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 June 2015
24 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
P v The Queen [2015] NZSC 90 24 June 2015 (PDF, 82 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Phillip Wiki Taha v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether new evidence not led at trial is “ fresh” and cogent.[2015] NZCA 107 CA 405/2014
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
16 March 2016
16 March 2016
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 44/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Special leave to appeal – Judicial Review – Review of Registrar’s decision not to provide copies of applications for leave to appeal – Whether High Court correct to strike out application.[2015] NZHC 709 CIV 2015-485-60
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
13 July 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
13 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'
Case number
SC 45/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.[2015] NZCA 122 CA 5/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 46/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Cooper J erred in dismissing the application under appeal without a hearing.[2015] NZHC 709 CIV 2015-485-60
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Page 123 of 248