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
R I G v Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Social Development and others
Case number
SC 90/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to waive security for costs for the applicant’s appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. [2010] NZCA 362 CA 261/2009 10 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 November 2010
Case name
Kent James Bond v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether evidence was admissible – Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in summing up – Whether the sentence was excessive.[2010] NZCA 381 CA 109/2010 18 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BOND v R SC 91/2010 [23 November 2010] (PDF, 43 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 November 2010
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 92/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Visiting arrangements for maximum-security prisoner and young daughter – High Court declined appellant interim relief against prison manager’ s decision restricting previous monthly contact visits with daughter in interests of child and prisoner safety – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to make mandatory interim relief order against prison manager’s discretion despite finding that courts have jurisdiction to order mandatory interim relief against the Crown – Whether Court of Appeal should have commented on respondent’s cross-appeal when High Court observations founding cross-appeal made only in obiter.[2010] NZCA 371 CA 165/2010 16 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 December 2010.
Case name
Aldwyn John Cockburn, Janet Elizabeth Cockburn and Keith Ian Jeffries v C S Development No 2 Limited
Case number
SC 93/2010
Summary
Civil – GST due on sale of commercial property – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the sale of the property did not include the claimed supply of a going concern – Whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s assessment that it was a going concern can only be questioned by challenge proceedings under the Tax Administration Act 1994.[2010] NZCA 373 CA 445/2009 16 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 November 2010.
Case name
Shaun Mihaka Sullivan v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2010
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – applicant convicted of murder in the High Court and sentenced to life imprisonment – after the jury had retired and following legal argument, the trial Judge called the jury back to give some redirections – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge’s directions to the jury regarding out-of-court statements of the applicant’s co-accused did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the redirections by the trial Judge safely dealt with any initial errors – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to recall its judgment dismissing the appeal on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances and the interests of justice did not require it.[2010] NZCA 407 CA 129/2010 7 September 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SULLIVAN v R SC 94/2010 [9 December 2010] (PDF, 55 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 December 2010
Case name
Winston James Shane Young v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the appellant’s conviction; whether the trial judge erred in his summing up to the jury; whether guilty verdict unreasonable.[2010] NZCA 309 CA 555/2009 19 July 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
YOUNG v R SC 95/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal refused.
8 December 2010
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, D J Hampton, Chesterfields Partnership, Chesterfields Preschools Partnership & Anolbe Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 96/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review appeal – Taxation liabilities – Appellants were partly successful in the first judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Commissioner) and the Commissioner was ordered to reconsider a number of matters - Second judicial review proceedings held the Court would not enforce the debt owed to the Commissioner by the appellants until the Court was satisfied that the first judicial review had been complied with – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing to an extent the appeal by the Commissioner against the second judicial review judgment.[2010] NZCA 400 CA 607/2008, CA 800/2008, SC 271/2009, CA 156/2010 31 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal and the associated application for directions are dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 December 2010
Case name
Tabbasum Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2010
Summary
Criminal – Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether Crown was required to exclude at trial the possibility that murder injury was unsurvivable – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find sufficient evidence to exclude that possibility.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 790/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Arrow International Limited v QBE Insurance (International) Limited
Case number
SC 99/2010
Summary
Civil – Construction of insurance policy – Head contractor of leaky apartment complex made insurance claim in respect of compensation paid to the body corporate and unit owners for building defects – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s liability to pay compensation was not “consequent upon” damage happening during the relevant insurance period and therefore the applicant was not entitled to be indemnified for the compensation paid[2010] NZCA 408 CA 426/2009 8 September 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
15 December 2010Page 188 of 244