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.
24 June 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)
All years
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 15/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2015] NZCA 8 CA 669/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether District Court erred in ordering detention as special patient – Whether Court of Appeal erred in findings on instructions to trial counsel.[2014] NZCA 212 CA 627/2013
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 15 May 2015
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 15 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
B v R [2015] NZSC 66 15 May 2015 (PDF, 77 KB)
Judgment appealed from
B v R [2014] NZCA 212 (White, Ronald Young and Simon France JJ) [B (CA)] not available
Case name
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Noel Robert Hair
Case number
SC 17/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that no cause of action for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment was open to the applicant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential questions.[2015] NZCA 6 CA 794/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent of $2,500.00
17 April 2015
17 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rikki Leigh Scott-Ngatai-Check v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal placed insufficient weight on the prejudicial effect of the expert’s opinion evidence. [2011] NZCA 543 CA 175/2011
Result
An extension of time to make the application for leave to appeal is granted but that application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 24 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 19/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court was correct to adjourn the applicant’s judicial review application pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.[2015] NZCA 12 CA 121/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent $2,500.
2 June 2015
______________________
Application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2015
2 June 2015
______________________
Application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 20/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether High Court erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for judicial review and a stay of proceedings.[2015] NZCA 68 CA 550/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents. 12 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s statement of claim. [2015] NZHC 403 CIV 2014-485-11155
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 8 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc
Case number
SC 22/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review. [2015] NZHC 334 CIV 2014-485-10920
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[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 in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award 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 in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O’Brien and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 24/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether Judge correct to find imposition of security for costs lawful – Whether Judge correct to find ground of appeal on grant of standing to be hopeless and vexatious – Whether Judge correct to order security for costs.[2015] NZCA 86 CA 693/2014
Recall judgment
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 92 26 June 2015 (PDF, 194 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 117 of 244