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.

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
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not adjusting the earlier indicated sentence of the accused. [2012]NZCA 362  CA  249/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012
Case name
Tiroa E and Te Hapa B Trusts v Chief Executive of Land Information and others.
Case number
SC 58/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Overseas Investment Act 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had applied the correct test under s 16(1)(a) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had not taken into account irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had obtained reasonably adequate information to reach decision that s 16(1)(a) of the Act had been satisfied.  [2012]NZCA 355  CA  88/2012, CA 284/2012
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
 
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to both Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd and the Crown respondents.
17 October 2012.
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 59/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing a factual determination to be made without any admissible evidential foundation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining serious appellate litigation on the basis of hypothetical, conjectural or speculative actions to override the usual presumption of one trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the appellant without an application. [2012]NZCA 359  CA  796/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

30 October 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 60/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for Costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold decision of Acting-Registrar to decline application to dispense with security for costs.CA  422/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.  Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

1 November  2012.
Case name
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge.  [2012]NZCA 363  CA  616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part.  The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside.  The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B  In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C  In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D  The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Substantive judgment
NEIL STUART JOHNSTON v CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK SCHURR [2015] NZSC 82 [12 June 2015] (PDF, 359 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2015

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Alyxe John Wood-Luxford v Mark John Wood
Case number
SC 62/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Family Protection Act, ss 2(1) and 3 – Definition of “stepchild” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was not eligible to bring a claim under the Act – Whether word “living”, as used in the Act, can include a child in utero at the date of the qualifying event.[2012]NZCA 377  CA  739/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The question to be addressed on the appeal is whether the applicant is a person entitled to claim under the Family Protection Act 1955 against the estate of John Luxford, either as a child of the deceased or a step-child of the deceased within the meaning of the Family Protection Act 1955.
5 December 2012
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The reasonable solicitor and client costs for all parties are to be met by the estate of the late John Williamson Luxford.
19 December 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD COA CA739/2011 [21 August 2012]
Leave judgment - leave granted
WOOD-LUXFORD v WOOD SC 62/2012 [5 December 2012] (PDF, 8 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 7 March 2013 (PDF, 219 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALYXE JOHN WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD [2013] NZSC 153 [19 December 2013] (PDF, 236 KB)
Case name
Visy Board Pty Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 63/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Competition Law – Commerce Act 1986, s 4 – Application of the Commerce Act 1986 to conduct outside New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the phrase “to the extent that such conduct affects a market in New Zealand” in s 4(1) of the Act encompasses conduct that merely “relates to” a market in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that whether or not a person is “carrying on business in New Zealand” is a question of fact involving a wide variety of factors, not one of which is essential for marking a positive finding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret properly r 6.29 of the High Court Rules. [2012]NZCA 383   CA  312/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Philip Dean Taueki v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2012
Summary
Criminal – s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s defence of peaceable possession – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant did not have possession of the land acquiesced by all other persons – whether the Crown’s guarantee under the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of “ full, exclusive and undisturbed possession” of all land collectively owned is relevant to whether the applicant did have peaceable possession.    [2012]NZCA 428  CA  383/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted with regard to the first charge of assault. The approved ground is whether Mr Taueki had a defence
under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 to that first charge.
14 November 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAUEKI v R SC 64/2012 [14 November 2012] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAUEKI v R [2013] NZSC 146 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 217 KB)
Case name
Aeneas Davidson v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial counsel’ s conduct of the defence was deficient so as to render the applicant’s trial unfair – Evidence – Whether, in pursuing the defence, trial counsel elicited inadmissible recent complaint evidence that was prejudicial to the applicant making the verdicts unsafe.   [2012]NZCA 391  CA  174/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2013
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate.  [2012]NZCA 399  CA  200/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.

14 November 2012

_____________________

tc
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 March 2013
Page 164 of 244