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
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164 CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 11 October 2012
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Case name
Marta Hayes v Judith Guerin
Case number
SC 59/2011
Summary
Civil – Administration Act 1969 – Family Protection Act 1955 – Dispute over will –Costs ¬– Whether appellant ought to have been made liable for costs in Court of Appeal following unsuccessful application for extension of time within which to appeal 2009 High Court decision ¬– Whether related lower court judgments were made without jurisdiction; were void ab initio; were erroneous; and thus necessitate a remedy in restitution.[2010] NZCA 592 CA 466/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAYES v GUERIN SC 59/2011 [3 August 2011] (PDF, 42 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2500 to the respondent.
3 August 2011.
3 August 2011.
Case name
Warren Bruce Fenemor v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of propensity evidence –That some items of evidence admitted were inadmissible propensity evidence – That the trial Judge’s directions on the use of that evidence were inadequate – That the trial Judge erred in preventing the appellant from demonstrating his account of the incident.[2011] NZCA 206 CA 457/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in part. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold, following R v Degnan that propensity evidence may be led by the Crown despite that evidence having previously been led at a trial which resulted in an acquittal.
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
Media Releases
- media release fenemor (PDF, 82 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 60 2011 warren bruce fenemor v the queen (PDF, 130 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 4 October 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Pacific Farms Limited and Pacific Farms Development Limited v Palmerston North City Council and Palmerston North Industrial & Residential Developments Limited
Case number
SC 64/2011
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 – Issue of consents without notice ¬– High Court declining to quash consents or grant declarations on terms sought by appellants – Whether Court of Appeal correct to set aside all of High Court’s declarations (and leave feasibility of a rehearing to the parties) on basis that late revelation of a relevant consent and regional plan meant that the critical issues were unable to be addressed in any meaningful way – Whether, in light of that finding, Court of Appeal correct to order parties to bear their own costs and set aside High Court costs orders – Extent of differentiation and/or overlap of functions and jurisdiction of Territorial Authorities and Regional Councils – Effect of regional plan on status of activity for notification purposes – Effect of principles of natural justice on Court of Appeal decision, particularly its decision to determine proceedings on a ground not the subject of pleadings or submissions by the parties. [2011] NZCA 187 CA 116/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
6 July 2011.
6 July 2011.
Case name
Augustus Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2011
Summary
Criminal – Party liability – That the trial Judge’s directions on s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 were inadequate – Trial process – That the process by which the jury delivered its verdicts was unsafe.[2011] NZCA 181 CA 75/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 November 2011.
11 November 2011.
Case name
Kunal Nand Reddy v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence of good character – That failure of trial counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s good character caused a miscarriage of justice – Trial process – That the trial Judge’ s directions were insufficiently clear – That the process by which the jury delivered its verdicts was unsafe – Accessory after the fact – That the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 71(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.[2011] NZCA 181 CA 75/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 November 2011.
11 November 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260 CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial where no direction given to jury on proper use of expert evidence.[2011] NZCA 191 CA 23/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
8 November 2011.
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited v Douglas Norman Scott
Case number
SC 69/2011
Summary
Civil – Insurance – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision holding High Court incorrect to strike out respondent’s proceeding – Whether proceeding out of time – Limitation Act 1950 – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding it arguable that respondent’s cause of action accrued on or after 28 September 2000 – Distinction between occurrence of insured event and proof of insured event – Whether English authority on limitation and application of limitation statutes to insurance policies relevant in the context of contingency insurance policies for a fixed benefit payable under a critical illness policy in New Zealand – Relevance of respondent’s eventual cancellation of policy – Consistency of Court of Appeal’s decision with principles in Trustees Executors Ltd v Murray [2007] NZSC 27, [2007] 3 NZLR 721. [2011] NZCA 214 CA 452/2010
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.
22 September 2011
Case name
Keith Allenby v H, Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board and Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 70/2011
Summary
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.30 June 2011.[2011] NZCA 251 CA 586/2010
Result
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
Media Releases
- media release sc 70 2011 allenby v h ors (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLENBY v H SC 70/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLENBY v H SC [9 May 2012] (PDF, 310 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 16 February 2012
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 174 of 244