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
John Hillary Corbett v Robert Corbett  Western and  Bruce Reginald Patterson
Case number
SC 69/2010
Summary
Civil appeal – applicant seeks leave to appeal a refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave for the bringing of an appeal to that Court[2010]  NZCA 270 25 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CORBETT v WESTERN AND PATTERSON SC 69/2010 [3 August 2010] (PDF, 7 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 August 2010.
Case name
Philip John Smith v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 71/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant the right to a fair hearing on account of bias, hostility and predetermining the appellant’s recusal applications; whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence tendered at the High Court was admissible; whether psychological reports of the appellant were obtained in breached s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010]  NZCA 258  23 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PHILIP JOHN SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 71/2010 [8 September 2010] (PDF, 63 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 September 2010
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010]  NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.  Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.  
19 May 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
INGRAM AND KNEE And Anor v PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMI TED SC 72/2010 [27 September 2010] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
INGRAM AND KNEE v PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMITED SC 72/2010 [10 May 2011] (PDF, 150 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 March 2011

Elias CJ,  Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
TMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling video evidence taken on private property during an undercover operation admissible.[2010]  NZCA 287  5 July  2010
Result

Appeal dismissed.

17 December 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

13 August 2010
Hearing

2 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
TRD v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Implied licence to enter private property – whether a police officer acts within the terms of the implied licence at common law to enter private property when he enters with the purpose of investigating suspected criminal activity as well as the intention to communicate with the occupier of the property[2010]  NZCA 297  14 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

8 September 2010
Case name
Neville Fong and June Chong v Christopher Shane Wong and Angela Kim Fong
Case number
SC 75/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in apply s 149 of the Companies Act 1993 to a transaction between persons who are not directors as defined by s 126 of that Act; whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “fair value”  in s 149.[2010]  NZCA 301   16 July  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FONG AND CHONG v WONG AND FONG SC 75/2010 [27 September 2010] (PDF, 42 KB)
Recall judgment
FONG AND CHONG v WONG AND FONG SC 75/2010 [13 December 2010] (PDF, 77 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

28 September 2010
Case name
Sialofi Nee Ah Kee Patea v The Queen
Case number
SC 76/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction for assault with intent to injure.[2010]  NZCA 338  30 July  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIALOFI NEE AH KEE PATEA v R SC 76/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 November 2010.
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010]  NZCA 324   26 July  2010
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

13 October 2010

________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

27 June 2012

 
 
 
 

 
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Iowane Seru Sucuturaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal from conviction for sexual violation by rape – What is the proper test for admission of evidence concerning jury deliberations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a witness had committed perjury when he had not faced a jury – What is the standard of proof for a finding of perjury – Whether a miscarriage of justice was caused by the admission of inadmissible evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the trial Judge’s misdirection on representative counts did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IOWANE SERU SUCUTURAGA v R SC 78/2010 [3 February 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 February 2011
Case name
Rupinder Singh Chahil v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for kidnapping after joint trial with three others – appeal against sentence and conviction – statement of co-accused used in evidence against the applicant – the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence but declined to impose a sentence of home detention in place of imprisonment – Whether the applicant’s rights under section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (minimum standards of criminal procedure) were breached by the Crown’s use of the co-accused’ s statement at trial – whether the Court of Appeal failed to identify the extent and impact of the inadmissible material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider home detention as an option in terms of section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2010]  NZCA 331   27 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

28 September 2010
Page 186 of 244