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
Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and Marion Ngaire Creser (as Trustees and Executors of the estate of Jesse Joy Creser)
Case number
SC 105/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to accept the applicant’s documents for filing. [2015] NZCA 416 CA 105/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
18 December 2015
___
The recall application is dismissed.
10 February 2016
__
The application for the recall of the judgment of 10 February 2016 is dismissed.
14 March 2016 (direction)
___
A The recall application is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar to refuse to accept any applications involving challenges to:
(1) the judgment of Harrison J in Creser v Creser [2015] NZCA 416; (
2) our decisions of 18 December 2015, 10 February 2016 and 10 March 2016;
(3) this judgment; and
(4) any future decision of the Registrar refusing to accept such applications.
6 April 2016
18 December 2015
___
The recall application is dismissed.
10 February 2016
__
The application for the recall of the judgment of 10 February 2016 is dismissed.
14 March 2016 (direction)
___
A The recall application is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar to refuse to accept any applications involving challenges to:
(1) the judgment of Harrison J in Creser v Creser [2015] NZCA 416; (
2) our decisions of 18 December 2015, 10 February 2016 and 10 March 2016;
(3) this judgment; and
(4) any future decision of the Registrar refusing to accept such applications.
6 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
A v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the defendant was not deprived of his defence at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.[2015] NZCA 377 CA 37/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2015
________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
23 March 2016
17 December 2015
________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
23 March 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
A (SC 106/2015) v R [2015] NZSC 191 17 December 2015 (PDF, 85 KB)
Recall judgment
A (SC 106/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 31 [23 March 2016 (PDF, 171 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)
Case number
SC 107/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. [2015] NZCA 390 CA 111/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 April 2016 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 89 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and Body Corporate 341188 and others
Case number
SC 108/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. [2015] NZCA 393 CA 185/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 June 2016 (PDF, 624 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 167 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lindsay James Trevor Smallbone v George Paul London, Ian Neville Wishart, Howling at the Moon Publishing Limited, Paulette Merle London
Case number
SC 109/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court was correct to recall the original judgment issued post verdict in a civil jury trial for defamation – Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order a retrial post verdict – Whether new evidence justified ordering a retrial.[2015] NZCA 391 CA 324/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first and fourth respondents. 17 December 2015
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Friedrich Joachim Fehling v Douglas John Appleby
Case number
SC 110/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against decision of the High Court – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 6, 27 – Human Rights Act 1993, ss 65, 66, 105 – Whether High Court erred in its interpretation of the Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act.[2015] NZHC 75 CIV 2014 418 21
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 November 2015
23 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Human Rights Review Tribunal decision
Case name
Michael Kinlim Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 111/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court failed to adopt the correct test for bias in respect of dismissal from the Public Service.[2015] NZEmpC 36 ARC 11/14
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 9 November 2015
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 340 – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that joinder of two sets of charges by two different complainants would not unfairly prejudice the defendant.[2015] NZCA 323 CA 149/2015
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 October 2015 __
Case name
RJG v The Queen
Case number
SC 113/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a pre-trial ruling as to evidence.[2015] NZCA 462 CA 506/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 October 2015 __
Case name
Douglas Banks and Christine Sandra Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 114/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a document sought to be discovered by the applicants was legally privileged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the leases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants had failed to discharge the evidential burden as to fraudulent misrepresentation. [2015] NZCA 417 CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Page 126 of 244