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
Kung We Chen v Dilworth Trust Board
Case number
SC 89/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.[2014] NZCA 352 CA 79/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Accent Management Limited v Attorney-General and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy if a Judge attempting to calculate tax overlooks the direction in s EH 8(1) of the Income Tax Act 1994 that subpart EG and s DL 1(3) of that Act are not to apply, where failure to comply with them engages the Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights 1688 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to overlook the direction in s EH 8(1), whether in demanding tax or reviewing such a demand - Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 351 CA 541/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 91/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that they lacked jurisdiction to make the order sought under s 61A(1) – Whether the law requires that publicly recorded judgments be issued to dispose of such applications. Minute 28 August 2014.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 September 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
15 September 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 83 (PDF, 249 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157 [31 October 2014] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83 [17 June 2015] (PDF, 590 KB)
Case name
Mariam Tohuia Filihia v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s trial counsel made no error in the conduct of the case which resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the reconstructive evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 17 year minimum period of imprisonment.[2014] NZCA 401 CA 786/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 October 2014
29 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FILIHIA v R [2014] NZSC 154 29 October 2014 (PDF, 64 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established. [2014] NZCA 377 CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Attorney-General and others.
Case number
SC 96/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the Registrar’s decision that refused to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 374 CA 763/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 11 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Collins Eze v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal is manifestly excessive – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the disparity between the applicant’ s sentence and the sentences imposed on co-offenders.[2014] NZCA 529 CA 760/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Fanshawe 136 Limited, 136 Fanshawe Limited and Fanshawe Capital Limited
Case number
SC 98/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the approach adopted by Court of Appeal in determining the appropriate remedy in cases where an equitable estoppel was wrong in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the appropriate remedy in this case.[2014] NZCA 407 CA 24/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
1 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
1 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 143 of 249