Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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.

11 July 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)

All years

Case name
WDB v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Pre-trial application – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against admission of propensity evidence at trial – Probative value of propensity evidence in identifying the offender –– Incident of alleged offending and propensity incident allegedly different in nature – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to regard that the inevitable identification of the applicant in respect of all charges once the applicant’s identification on one charge is established is not unfairly prejudicial.CA 696/2011    [2012] NZCA106
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 May 2012.
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v New Zealand Parole Board, Department of Corrections, New Zealand Immigration.
Case number
SC 23/2012
Summary
Criminal law – Parole – Parole Act 2002, ss 21(1) and 28(5) -  Habeas corpus - Whether the Parole Board’s exercise of its extraordinary powers under s 28(5)  to amend the applicant’s release date was in breach of section 22 of the Bill of Rights 1990 prohibiting arbitrary detention – Whether not permitting the applicant to be heard or represented at certain Parole Board sittings was in breach of s 27(1) of the Bill of Rights 1990 - Whether the chairman of the Parole Board failed to comply with the procedures set out in the Parole Act 2002 and Criminal Justice Act 1985 – Whether the Parole Board failed to comply with its own policy regarding disclosure – Whether the Parole Board’s decision was based on erroneous and irrelevant information and falsified High Court records – whether the Parole Board acted outside of its jurisdiction and abused its power.CA164/2012  [2012] NZCA 116
Dates
Application for leave to appeal  dismissed.
21 June  2012.
Case name
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Case name
SM v ASB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 25/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Property Law – Whether a notice of claim under s 42 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 should have been removed in the circumstances of the case where it is alleged that the Respondent was aware of the Applicant’s extant claims to property – Whether a third party purchaser can exercise a mortgagee’s power to possess property occupied under s 27 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. CA 6902011  [2012] NZCA 103
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
Case name
YS v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the verb “to obtain” in the context of s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court erred in its decision not to exclude the statements made by the appellants on the ground of unfairness.CA 373/2011  [2012] NZCA 114
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
CF v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the verb “to obtain” in the context of s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court erred in its decision not to exclude the statements made by the appellants on the ground of unfairness.CA 372/2011  [2012] NZCA 114
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 28/2012
Summary
Procedure – High Court Rules – Inherent Jurisdiction – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Associate Judge’s finding that the High Court at Nelson was, in the circumstances, the most convenient Court to deal with the issues raised in the bankruptcy notice – Whether a litigation guardian should have been appointed to assist the applicant – Bankruptcy – Whether a bankruptcy notice should have been issued against a person known to be solvent.CA 567/2007  [2012] NZCA 110
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

3 October 2012.
Case name
Jason Lloyd Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2012
Summary
Criminal – Sentencing – Rape – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in raising the applicant’s sentence from 9.5 years to 13 years – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a finding of ‘ significant premeditation’ in sexual offending was not restricted to the existence of a fixed intention to have non-consensual-sex prior to the offending, and that an offence would be ‘significantly’ premeditated where there was an intent to have sexual connection with the victims regardless of whether consent was forthcoming – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the victim’s consent to sexual activity with the applicant’ s co-offender prior to the rape was not relevant to sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the lower Court’s 6 month reduction for ‘previous good conduct, family circumstances and the shame experienced’ was inappropriate in light of his past offending and repeated denial of the rape. CA 376/2011  [2012] NZCA 27
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 June 2012.
Case name
Richard Grant Simpson & Timothy Wilson Downes as receivers of Capital + Merchant Investments Limited (In Receivership) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 30/2012
Summary
CA 361/2011  [2012] NZCA 126
Dates

We grant leave to appeal.

The approved question is:

Were the applicants required to pay the GST on the sales to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue?

25 July 2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
23 October 2012.
Case name
Reginald Robert Long v ANZ National Bank Limited
Case number
SC 31/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against summary judgment – Property Law Act 2007, s 176(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that mortgagee complied with duty to use reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that Respondent provided sufficient evidence to prove that there was no arguable defence against summary judgment. CA  708/2011  [2012] NZCA132
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs are reserved, with the respondent to submit a memorandum within seven days as to the costs sought and the applicant to reply within a further seven days.
4 July 2012.
Page 161 of 245