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
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 85/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted the application for an extension of time. CA 156/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
Carl James Peterson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 87/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court should be granted to allow the applicant to challenge the decision in Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462 – Whether Associate Judge Christiansen’ s judgment should be set aside. [2015] NZHC 1336 CIV 2015 463 22
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
JWB v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the trial Judge’s directions in relation to s 168 of the Crimes Act 1961 risked miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. [2015] NZCA 306 CA 687/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 March 2016
Case name
Anthony Paul Mount and Kaye Pamela Mount v Eleanor Margaretta Hannay and others
Case number
SC 89/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred to the extent to which it upheld judgment entered into against the applicant in the High Court.[2014] NZCA 600 CA 34/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500.
30 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500.
30 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson
Case number
SC 90/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal. [2015] NZCA 362 CA 112/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
15 October 2015
____________________
Application for recall dismissed
22 October 2015
15 October 2015
____________________
Application for recall dismissed
22 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Toni Maree Miller v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2015] NZCA 312 CA 364/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 November 2015
4 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tariana Hineteangaurangi Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the ground of appeal that the jury should have been directed on an alternative explanation of the facts – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2015] NZCA 312 CA 369/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 4 November 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321 CA 238/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 - 15 April 2016 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] 95 (PDF, 248 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Brown v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Refusal of pre-trial application to dismiss charges based on delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 322 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. [2015] NZCA 3215 CA 320/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2015
20 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Brown v R [2015] NZCA 325 (Wild, Keane and Kó s JJ) not available
Page 124 of 244