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
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530 CA 756/2011
Hearing
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Dates
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
Case name
Daniel Brian Thomas Barrie v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23(1)(b) – Right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding foreign lawyers from those who may be consulted by a detainee under s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the drink/drive context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a failure by Police to explain that there is no right to consult a foreign lawyer will not constitute a failure to facilitate the right to counsel provided the opportunity to consult and instruct a New Zealand lawyer had been afforded.[2012] NZCA 485 CA 849/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 March 2013.
15 March 2013.
Case name
M v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 89/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – Bill of Rights Act 1990 ss 9, 19 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’ s case for being out of time – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no stand alone right to family life entitling the applicant, as a person currently applying for refugee status or for recognition as a protected person under the immigration Act 2009 but not holding permanent residence, to visits from his family – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s refusal to allow the applicant’ s wife and child (residing in Australia) to visit him in New Zealand was not cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment under s 9 of the Bill of Rights – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s decision not to extend its family reunification policy to family members of asylum seekers wanting entry into New Zealand was not in breach of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of “ethnic or national origins” under s 19 of the Bill of Rights. [2012] NZCA 489 CA 587/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
4 March 2013.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
4 March 2013.
Case name
Tama Wairere Iti v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Whether the jury should have been directed that evidence admissible under the co-conspirator’s rule was not available for consideration by the jury in relation to the Arms Act 1983 charges – Whether the statutory presumption of criminal liability under the Arms Act extended to a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of unlawful purpose under the Arms Act – Whether the jury’s inability to agree on the charge brought under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 retrospectively affected the analysis which led to certain evidence being admitted – Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to have regard to aspirational or general discussions of inchoate thoughts forming part of a discharged count.[2012] NZCA 492 CA 306/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
23 April 2013.
Case name
New Zealand Post Limited v Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Incorporated and Linda Street
Case number
SC 91/2012
Summary
Employment – Holidays Act 2003, s 9(1)(b)(ii) and (3) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “relevant daily pay” – Whether unrostered overtime for postal delivery workers is to be included in the calculation of relevant daily pay as payments that “would have otherwise been received” – In which circumstances is the application of the “averaging formula” triggered. [2012] NZCA 481 CA 327/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursement s to the respondent.
13 March 2013.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursement s to the respondent.
13 March 2013.
Case name
Kevin Tito v Aroha Tito and John Andrew
Case number
SC 92/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – Whether there was a breach of the Trust Order in relation to the election of trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting this breach of the Trust Order – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered further the issue relating to a respondent’s receipt of trust monies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was seeking the removal of the respondents as trustees – Whether the Trust has failed to act in the interests of the owners. [2012] NZCA 493 CA 856/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Case name
Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2) – Parties to offences – Arms Act 1983, s 45 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the appellants’ submission that the reverse onus in s 45(2) of the Arms Act did not apply to a party to an offence – Whether Police illegality in gathering evidence admitted at the trial should have been taken into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing. [2012] NZCA 492 CA 363/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
23 April 2013.
Case name
Ian Campbell Macpherson v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 340(3) – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b) – Sentencing Act 2002, s 142N – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Court’s refusal to sever the applicant’s trial from that of his co-accused did not lead to a miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’ s conduct (of rubbing his hands together after handling dried cannabis plant thus collecting cannabis resin) changed the cannabis plant that he had harvested into another controlled substance, thus falling within the meaning of “ to produce” under s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding, in part, an order for forfeiture of a portion of the applicant’s property under s 142N of the Sentencing Act.[2012] NZCA 522 CA 643/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510 CA 216/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006?
18 April 2013
________________
tc
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Jamie Ahsin v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Party to murder –Providing assistance to principal offender – Concept of withdrawal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that appellant’s actions could not amount to a withdrawal of assistance[2011] NZCA 75 CA 133/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to withdrawal in relation to s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.
11 March 2013
____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
11 March 2013
____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 July 2013 (PDF, 442 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 153 (PDF, 262 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
AHSIN v R SC 96/2012 [11 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
Page 167 of 244