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
Alyxe John Wood-Luxford v Mark John Wood
Case number
SC 62/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Family Protection Act, ss 2(1) and 3 – Definition of “stepchild” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was not eligible to bring a claim under the Act – Whether word “living”, as used in the Act, can include a child in utero at the date of the qualifying event.[2012]NZCA 377  CA  739/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The question to be addressed on the appeal is whether the applicant is a person entitled to claim under the Family Protection Act 1955 against the estate of John Luxford, either as a child of the deceased or a step-child of the deceased within the meaning of the Family Protection Act 1955.
5 December 2012
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The reasonable solicitor and client costs for all parties are to be met by the estate of the late John Williamson Luxford.
19 December 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD COA CA739/2011 [21 August 2012]
Leave judgment - leave granted
WOOD-LUXFORD v WOOD SC 62/2012 [5 December 2012] (PDF, 8 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 7 March 2013 (PDF, 219 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALYXE JOHN WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD [2013] NZSC 153 [19 December 2013] (PDF, 236 KB)
Case name
Visy Board Pty Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 63/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Competition Law – Commerce Act 1986, s 4 – Application of the Commerce Act 1986 to conduct outside New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the phrase “to the extent that such conduct affects a market in New Zealand” in s 4(1) of the Act encompasses conduct that merely “relates to” a market in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that whether or not a person is “carrying on business in New Zealand” is a question of fact involving a wide variety of factors, not one of which is essential for marking a positive finding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret properly r 6.29 of the High Court Rules. [2012]NZCA 383   CA  312/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Philip Dean Taueki v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2012
Summary
Criminal – s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s defence of peaceable possession – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant did not have possession of the land acquiesced by all other persons – whether the Crown’s guarantee under the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of “ full, exclusive and undisturbed possession” of all land collectively owned is relevant to whether the applicant did have peaceable possession.    [2012]NZCA 428  CA  383/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted with regard to the first charge of assault. The approved ground is whether Mr Taueki had a defence
under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 to that first charge.
14 November 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAUEKI v R SC 64/2012 [14 November 2012] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAUEKI v R [2013] NZSC 146 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 217 KB)
Case name
Aeneas Davidson v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial counsel’ s conduct of the defence was deficient so as to render the applicant’s trial unfair – Evidence – Whether, in pursuing the defence, trial counsel elicited inadmissible recent complaint evidence that was prejudicial to the applicant making the verdicts unsafe.   [2012]NZCA 391  CA  174/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2013
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate.  [2012]NZCA 399  CA  200/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 [20 September 2013] (PDF, 255 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 March 2013
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
The Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated and others v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 68/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Whether, in the circumstances in which Maori land was acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson settlement, the Crown was in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired – Whether the High Court erred in holding that no trust existed – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty – Whether, if such obligations were owed, those owners have lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the appellants did not have standing to bring the proceeding.[2012]NZHC 1461  Civ 2010 442 181
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – District Court Act 1947 - whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the ownership of the copyright in dispute – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the correct court processes to be followed in relation to an order for costs and insolvency proceedings. [2012]NZHC  2582  CIV 2012 404 4172
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondents.
6 November 2012.
Case name
Roger Lindsay Blick v The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application for recall – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal declining to recall a judgment allegedly obtained by fraud – Whether the proposed appeal can be distinguished from de Mey v R [2005] NZSC 7.  [2012] NZCA 373  CA 26/2001
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Sonja Marie Lawson v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage, dishonestly and without claim of right – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss appeal against conviction ¬– Trial counsel errors – Prosecution Misconduct – Failure to consider appellant’s brief – Unfair hearing – Errors of law.[2012] NZCA 426  CA 593/2001
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAWSON v R SC 71/2012 [13 March 2013] (PDF, 44 KB)
Page 169 of 249