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
Philip Claude Tarr v Douglas John Sutcliffe and Terence Sutcliffe and Braden Matson as partners of Frost & Sutcliffe Lawyers
Case number
SC 46/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 July 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 July 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 47/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a replacement benefit payable under an insurance policy issued by the respondent was assignable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 68 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Wayne William Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 76 – Juror misconduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for an order to appoint a special counsel.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2018
21 August 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Robert Hoani Clifford Cribb and Karen Lynne Stevens v FM Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 49/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trespass – Bailment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the respondent mortgagees were entitled to remove the applicants’ possessions from the property – Whether applicants liable for costs associated with removal and storage.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 October 2018
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 50/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the issue was whether counsel had properly advised the client about the risk and financial implications of litigation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2018
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the retrial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
Result
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the retrial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
23 October 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Case name
H v Refugee and Protection Officer
Case number
SC 52/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’s appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (H (CA580/2017) v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZCA 188).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order of the High Court dismissing the proceeding is set aside.
C In its place, an order is made declining the respondent’s application to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
D The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
E Costs are reserved.
25 February 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order of the High Court dismissing the proceeding is set aside.
C In its place, an order is made declining the respondent’s application to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
D The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
E Costs are reserved.
25 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 October 2018 (PDF, 357 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 13 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Cornelius Hermanus Hendriks v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the failure to adduce evidence of the applicant’s lack of previous convictions at trial did not materially diminish the applicant’s prospects of an acquittal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge’s summing-up on the standard of proof was orthodox.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 25 October 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 54/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcript
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Case name
Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America
Case number
SC 55/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Leave to intervene declined
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Page 83 of 248