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
GPM v The Queen
Case number
SC 37/2009
Summary
Appeal against pre-trial ruling. Police investigating a burglary stopped a car in which the appellant was a passenger. Whether stopping the car was lawful despite police acting under a wrong statutory power when an alternative statutory power was available; Whether the continued search of the appellant’ s car after what had initially been thought to be weapon was actually a metal thermos was lawful; Whether evidence obtained during the continued search of the car and the resulting searches of the appellant and the appellant’ s house was admissible.[2009] NZCA 121 CA 743/2008 6 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Case name
Shane Charles Wenzel v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against decision of District Court Judge ordering trial by Judge alone under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the incorporation into s 361D(3)(b) of an accused’s right to trial by jury requires an assessment of the weight of an accused’s right to jury trial in the circumstances of the case and the potential length of any sentence that might be imposed on conviction – Whether the s 361D limit on an accused’s right to jury trial can be demonstratively justified under s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2009] NZCA 130 CA 31/2009 8 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 9 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WENZEL V R SC 38/2009 9 June 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Case name
Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited and others
Case number
SC 39/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – application of the Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading (“the Hague-Visby Rules”) to a grounding of a ship owned by the appellant – whether by reason of the conduct of the master of the vessel the appellant is not entitled to rely on the protection of Article IV Rule 2(a) – whether the Hague-Visby Rules depart from the prior common law – whether the history behind the Hague-Visby Rules is relevant to interpretation – whether the interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) should have regard to the factual context – whether the factual context warrants an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) that results in the appellant being liable – whether an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) which results in the appellant being liable is consistent with purpose and policy of the Hague-Visby Rules – whether an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) which results in the appellant being liable is consistent with Article III Rule 2[2009] NZCA 135 CA 519/2007 9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 July 2009
1 July 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 October 2009 (PDF, 895 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christopher Bede Ward v Diane Mary Ward
Case number
SC 40/2009
Summary
Civil – Family – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that an agreement for the sale and purchase of shares was a settlement for the purposes of s 182(1) of the Family Proceedings Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that for the purposes of s 182(6) of the Act a matrimonial property agreement was to be considered by itself and not as part of an overall transaction – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that access to s 182(1) could be gained where it was necessary in the interests of fairness and justice to do so, and thereafter the remedial discretion was a broad one to be exercised in the manner which achieved a fair result taking into account the total background – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to disallow Mr W’s separate property interests subsumed by the overall transaction.[2009] NZCA 139 CA 309/2008 9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted in part.
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 03 November 2009 (PDF, 586 KB)
Media Releases
- media release ward (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WARD v WARD SC 40/2009 [1 July 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
WARD v WARD SC 40/2009 [8 December 2009] (PDF, 225 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 41/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that as the Appellant was not a participant in the statutory scheme under review the Appellant did not possess public interest standing to review the identified pleaded decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has no application to decision making under the Official Information Act 1982CIV 2006 – 485-2161 20 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
3 June 2009
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860 22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter David Buddle v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961 – Sexual offending – Criminal procedure – Exercise of s 374 discretion to discharge jury without their giving of a verdict – Whether trial Judge had authority to discharge jury at first trial on “a hung jury aspect” – Whether second trial a nullity in respect of all charges – Whether miscarriage of justice established.[2009] NZCA 184 CA 416/2008 14 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
22 June 2009
22 June 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [22 June 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [26 November 2009] (PDF, 132 KB)
Result
Appeal allowed, Convictions set aside. New Trial ordered on three counts.
26 November 2009
Hearing
13 August 2009
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against refusal to grant bail pending appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by applying the wrong test – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by applying too rigid or too high a standard – whether the Court of Appeal failed properly to apply the correct statutory factors set out in ss 8 and 14 of the Bail Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account or accord due weight to the substantial miscarriage of justice allegedly suffered by the appellant[2009] NZCA 202 CA 190/2009 21 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2009
16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WONG V R SC 44/2009 16 June 2009 (PDF, 11 KB)
Case name
Bhikubhai Patel v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2009
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that tape recordings, which were not the originals, were nevertheless admissible – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not necessary to expressly warn the jury about the dangers of inferring intent from the literal meaning of words spoken in a foreign language – whether police practices and procedures were proper in this case[2009] NZCA 159 CA 190/2007 30 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 February 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PATEL V R SC 45/2009 5 February 2010 (PDF, 38 KB)
Case name
Cashmere Capital Limited v Patrick Kevin Carroll and others
Case number
SC 46/2009
Summary
Civil – Retirement Villages Act 2003 – retrospective operation of the Act – the Court of Appeal held that when there has been an Order in Council under s 103, the Registrar-General must note on the certificate of title to the land comprising the village that it is subject to s 22 of the Act, and that the expressed intention of Parliament was that the Act should operate retrospectively to 31 December 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 103 and 21 of the Act - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Registrar-General has registered Crossdale Village under s 21 of the Act then s 22 applied to the appellant and if the Registrar-General has not done so it should be performed forthwith.[2009] NZCA 185 CA 190/2007 15 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2009 (PDF, 559 KB)
Media Releases
- cashmere press release (PDF, 58 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 196 of 244