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
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s 14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 and 16 March 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
____________________
Hearing date : 19 and 20 February 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Appellant ordered by High Court to pay $920,000 in damages to Respondents for defamation and breach of contract – Appellant previously found by High Court to be in contempt of Court for breach of interim injunction and failure to pay costs, and debarred from defending defamation suit – Appeal to Court of Appeal struck out except for appeal as to quantum of damages awarded – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting in part Respondents’ strike-out application on the grounds of Appellant’s continuing contempt of Court – Whether strike-out application by Respondents made out of time – Whether Court of Appeal judge acted under a conflict of interest. [2009] NZCA 566 CA 453/2009 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 8/2010 [20 May 2010] (PDF, 20 KB)
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 May 2010.
Case name
Synlait Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Ors
Case number
SC 9/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Water rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that priority of hearing is determined in favour of the first applicant to file a complete application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to whether changes to an application after lodgement could affect which test would be applicable to determine priority and whether priority is maintained irrespective of what changes are made subsequent to lodgement – Whether the Court of Appeal provided inadequate recognition of the fact that an application can lose priority due to unreasonable delay.[2009] NZCA 609 CA 544/2008. CA 588/2008 18 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
22 June 2010.
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is how priority is determined as between competing applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 for a finite resource.
31 March 2010.
Case name
Valerie Morse v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a charge of ‘offensive behaviour’ under s4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss5 and 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider art 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether the classification of behaviour as ‘offensive’ is a question of fact or law.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether the District Court correctly interpreted and applied s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. 18 May 2010
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release morse 1 (PDF, 89 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 338 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Michael Shane McElroy and others as trustees of the Craigie Trust v Auckland International Airport Limited
Case number
SC 11/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Respondent not subject to the obligation in s 40 of the Act to offer back to the applicant land no longer required for the public work for which it was held – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the word “required” in s 40 – whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the term “ aerodrome” or “airport” as defined by the Act and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 – whether the Court’s interpretation of “ aerodrome” or “airport” undermines the purposes of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the qualifications in s 40(2) of the Act would nonetheless apply to exclude the respondent from the requirement to offer back the land[2009] NZCA 621 CA 440/2008 23 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 June 2010.
Case name
Philip James Whitley v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the District Court ordering a judge only trial under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961; whether the denial of a jury trial was a justifiable limitation on the right to a jury under s 24(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WHITLEY v R SC 12/2010 [18 March 2010] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 March 2010.
Case name
Terry Alan Merrilees v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual offences – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether miscarriage of justice will result unless guilty pleas are impugned and set aside – Whether trial counsel acted competently. [2009] NZCA 59 CA 394/2008 6 March 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MERRILEES v R SC 13/2010 [8 July 2010] (PDF, 38 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 July 2010.
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Provocation – Whether defendant’ s confession to police admissible given his intellectual disability (defendant seeks to adduce new evidence) – Whether sentence of detention in secure care should be substituted pursuant to the Intellectual Disabilities (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether substitution of sentence is required under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010] NZCA 2 CA 594/2008 3 February 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FERGUSON v R SC 14/2010 [29 July 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 July 2010.
Case name
Brendon Douglas Forrest v The Queen
Case number
SC 15/2010
Summary
Criminal - Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the aggregate term of the appellant’s sentences – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of Sentencing Act principles – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to lend appropriate weight to the appellant’ s mental condition.[2010] NZCA 34 CA 626/2009 26 February 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FORREST v R SC 15/2010 [21 April 2010] (PDF, 39 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 April 2010.
Case name
Rodney Paul Taniwha v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Sexual violation by rape – whether the Court of Appeal erred in approving the trial Judge’ s direction as to the meaning and application of s 128 of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the trial Judge was required, in the context of her direction, to additionally direct the jury to acquit the applicant if it thought that there was a reasonable possibility that the applicant reasonably believed the complainant consented to the sexual intercourse[2010] NZCA 15 CA 449/2009 19 February 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TANIWHA v R SC 16/2010 [12 May 2010] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 May 2010.
Page 180 of 244