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
Otehei Bay Holdings Limited and Explore NZ (2004) Limited v Fuller Bay of Islands Limited, Intercity Group (NZ) Limited and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 85/2011
Summary
Civil – Reserves and Domains Act 1953 – Reserves Act 1977 – Conservation Act 1987, Part 3B – That the appellants’ lease was not brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 when the Crown acquired Urupukapuka Island (where the appellant’s leasehold is situated) as a recreation reserve – That s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977 does not apply to the appellants’ lease, and no concession under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 is required to render the appellant’ s lease lawful.[2011] NZCA 300 CA 57/2010, CA 684/2010
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(i) Was the lease at Otehei Bay brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 upon the Crown’ s acquisition of Urupukapuka Island as a recreation reserve in 1970?
(ii) Does s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, as inserted by the Reserves Amendment Act 1996, apply to the lease at Otehei Bay?
C The approved grounds are intended to comprehend the sub issues referred to in the submissions of the third respondent dated 15 September, namely:
(i) Is the lease a perpetually renewable lease which has been extended since its creation, or is it one where a new lease has been entered into each time it has been extended or renewed?
(ii) What is the effect of the 10 to 15 year period where the lease may not have been renewed by the parties?
29 September 2011.
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
26 July 2012.
Case name
Rodney John Humphries v Ewan Robert Carr
Case number
SC 86/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Application of principle that a party should not be entitled to take advantage of his or her own wrong – Whether respondent should have been precluded from enforcing judgment for specific performance following his breach of a settlement agreement.[2011] NZCA 314 CA 565/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
28 September 2011.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
28 September 2011.
Case name
Gary Francis Haddon v GE Custodians and Barbara Gale Haddon.
Case number
SC 87/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a summary judgment of the High Court – Whether a credit contract is a “consumer credit contract” where the appellants were both debtors in their personal capacities and as trustees of a family trust – Whether it is sufficient for a lender to “largely” comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of s 17 – Whether the lender could contract out of the Act by defining the contract as a “credit contract” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment where the appellants did not have available to them much of the factual information relating to the load transaction, where the loan purpose on the loan documents differs from that stated on the loan application, where the lender was put on inquiry as to whether the borrowers could service the loan and where parties were being advised by the same lawyer increasing the likelihood of conflict of interest and undue influence. [2011] NZCA 335 CA 475/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to first respondent $2,500.00
Case name
Shannon Ian Clifford v The Queen
Case number
SC 89/2011
Summary
Criminal – Sentence – Increase of sentence – Sentencing guideline judgments – Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(3) – Whether Court of Appeal, in assessing appellant’s sentence, appropriately increased it from 5 to 7 years after considering courts’ approach to sentencing in light of the Supreme Court’s Hessell decision – Whether Court of Appeal in affirming s 9(3)’s prohibition on treating intoxication as mitigating has effectively held that lack of mens rea, if induced by voluntary consumption of intoxicants, can never be a mitigating factor; and whether this is correct in principle – Status of lack of mens rea partially induced by intoxicants – Status of guideline judgments in the wake of Supreme Court’s decision in Hessell [2011] NZCA 360 CA 88/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 October 2011
18 October 2011
Case name
Richard Horton McKay v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2011
Summary
Criminal – Fitness to stand trial – Whether the District Court’ s deviation from the procedure set out in Part 2, Subpart 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 resulted in a miscarriage of justice or rendered the trial a nullity under s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal sought.[2009] NZCA 378 CA 475/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 October 2011.
6 October 2011.
Case name
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc v Sheppard Industries Ltd and Avanti Bicycle Company Ltd
Case number
SC 91/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Scope of privilege for settlement negotiations or mediation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 57 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal gave proper effect to the mediation agreement and confidentiality agreement between the parties – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents could adduce particular affidavit evidence and evidence of what occurred during the course of mediation.[2011] NZCA 346 CA 805/2010
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Dates
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the respondents are precluded by the terms of the mediation agreement and/or the confidentiality agreement from adducing the disputed evidence.
12 October 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Haiden Davis v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial Judge correct in the circumstances to give “lies direction” to jury under s 124 Evidence Act – Whether trial judge correct in the circumstances to give condensed version of model jury direction on unanimity (“Papadopoulos direction”).[2011] NZCA 380 CA 767/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 November 2011.
3 November 2011.
Case name
Rodney Mark Gibson and Habode IP Limited v Richard John Curtis and Curtis Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 94/2011
Summary
Civil – Existence of Joint Venture – Jurisdiction – Judicature Act 1908, s66 – Costs – Whether Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing argument not put in issue in High Court as to existence of joint venture – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings inconsistent with evidence presented, particularly as to the Australian company Habode Holdings Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings for which there was no evidential basis – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the test for determining imposition of joint venture obligations – Whether correct approach taken to costs. [2011] NZCA 373 CA 368/2010 CA 285/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined. Costs to respondent $2,500.
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to uphold 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 evidence used in an inappropriately diagnostic way at trial – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial.[2011] NZCA 191 CA 51/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
8 November 2011.
Page 176 of 244