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
Jeffrey Ugochukwu Orji v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision that a defence of reasonable excuse was not available under s 142(1)(d)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to admit new evidence.[2013] NZCA 629 CA 167/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 21 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19 CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- sc25 2014kimdotcomorsvagpressr (PDF, 134 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Johan Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand, Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 26/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(5) and sch 3, s 2 – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was deficient because it failed to properly state its reasons in breach of rule 27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction by treating the hearing as a de novo hearing when the appellant had elected for a non de novo hearing – Whether “suspicion” falls below the threshold of “knowing” or reasonably knowing” in terms of s 135(5) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the right to lay representation in the Employment Court, as provided under s 2 of sch 3, to the Court of Appeal. [2014] NZCA 16 CA 400/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Lee v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no question of law to be decided – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the stay granted by the High Court.[2013] NZCA 483 CA 828/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 July 2014
4 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TERRY JONES v R [2014] NZSC 85 4 July 2014 (PDF, 88 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
RJL v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 122(2)(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the District Court Judge was entitled to decline to give a warning under s 122(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s ruling that the photograph evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the way the District Court Judge restricted the manner in which the applicant gave evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.[2013] NZCA 191 CA 707/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
L v R [2014] NZSC 107 [8 August 2014] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
L (SC 28/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 53 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 405 KB)
Case name
Ioritana Tuau v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.[2013] NZCA 623 CA 281/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 2 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IORITANA TUAU v R [2014] NZSC 83 2 July 2014 (PDF, 53 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Siemer v New Zealand Court of Appeal and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 30/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the means of conveying the judgment upholding the Registrar’s decision was lawful. CA 4/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2014
______________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
4 July 2014
11 June 2014
______________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
4 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
not available online
Case name
Alavine Feliuia Liu v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 31/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 9, 9.1 and 3 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that art 9, and in particular art 9.1, were not relevant to deportation cases – Whether the respondent erred in not having specific regard to art 9 notwithstanding its consideration of other specific articles in the convention – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that with the exception of Ewebiyi v Parr no other authorities referred to it held that art 9.1 applied to deportation cases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant case law and its assessment as to the reconciliation of arts 3 and 9.1.CA 4/2014[2014] NZCA 37 CA 754/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Israel Zuydendorp v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – The Court of Appeal erred in holding that counsel’ s behaviour did not lead to an unfair trial – Appellate counsel erred conducting the appeal – The Court of Appeal erred in findings in relation to propensity of witness testimony.[2014] NZCA 35 CA 254/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ISRAEL ZUYDENDORP v R [2014] NZSC 88 7 July 2014 (PDF, 73 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 33/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether or not the High Court erred in upholding the liquidation order made by the District Court.Civ 2013 409 1059
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 May 2014
2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 132 of 244