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
Shell (Petroleum Mining) Company Limited and others v Todd Petroleum Mining Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 6/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil Procedure – Injunction – Contract – Breach – Remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude overall contractual arrangements mean STOS not entitled to resign as Maui field Operator and Shell not entitled to encourage its STOS directors to vote in favour of resolution removing STOS as Operator – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude MDL/STOS contract of employment enforceable by Todd – Whether injunctive relief, rather than damages, correct remedy for any contract breach proved.[2007] NZCA 586 CA 144/06 18 December 2007Application for leave to appeal dismissed.Costs $2,500 to the first respondent.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Elders New Zealand Limited v PGG Wrightson Lmited
Case number
SC 7/2008
Summary
Civil – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an amalgamation approved under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 has the legal consequences provided for in s 219 of that Act – Whether an amalgamating company is entitled to “pick and choose” between Part 13 and Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the terms of the amalgamation order created the effect prescribed in Part 13 even though the order was made pursuant to Part 15 – Whether the applicant was bound by the Part 15 order although the order did not state that the applicant was bound.[2007] NZCA 596 CA 277/06 21 December 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008
Media Releases
- sc 7 elders nz ltd v pggwrightson ltd press release (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Neville James Gibson v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Case number
SC 8/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – proceedings against former legal counsel - whether the Court of Appeal made accurate findings of fact – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondent had complied with discovery obligations – whether the Court of Appeal had regard to all relevant evidence – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant would not have been entitled to legal aid in earlier proceedings against a third party – whether the respondent had a conflict of interest in earlier proceedings - whether the Court should have considered the applicant’ s financial position when awarding costs against him[2007] NZCA 595 CA 202/065, CA 33/06 21 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2.500 to respondent. 1 May 2008
Case name
Robert Charles De Bruin v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2008
Summary
Appeal against order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 - Court of Appeal held that the High Court had correctly calculated a pecuniary penalty order under s 25 of $1 million – whether first appellant more than a mere courier for the purposes of calculating the benefit received under s 27(2) – whether Court of Appeal wrong to follow R v Penderson [1995] 2 NZLR given position of couriers has not been resolved – whether Court of Appeal in error in upholding the High Court decision that the increase in value of the property was a benefit from the offending under s 28 – whether Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the appellants’ agreement under s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 2004 was intended to defeat the interests of the Crown as a creditor of the appellant – whether, given the second appellant’s appeal was successful in part, the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the legal costs should be paid from the second appellant’s interest in the property.[2007] NZCA 600 CA 317/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged , the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2008
Case name
Astrid Eleanor Delany v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2008
Summary
Appeal against order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 - Court of Appeal held that the High Court had correctly calculated a pecuniary penalty order under s 25 of $1 million – whether first appellant more than a mere courier for the purposes of calculating the benefit received under s 27(2) – whether Court of Appeal wrong to follow R v Penderson [1995] 2 NZLR given position of couriers has not been resolved – whether Court of Appeal in error in upholding the High Court decision that the increase in value of the property was a benefit from the offending under s 28 – whether Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the appellants’ agreement under s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 2004 was intended to defeat the interests of the Crown as a creditor of the appellant – whether, given the second appellant’s appeal was successful in part, the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the legal costs should be paid from the second appellant’s interest in the property.[2007] NZCA 600 CA 332/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2008
Case name
Robert Charles De Bruin v The Queen
Case number
SC 11/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – applicant’ s indictment was amended after his preliminary hearing to provide that he would be charged jointly with his co-accused – whether applicant had standing to attend the preliminary hearing of his co-accused – whether applicant’ s inability to do so rendered his trial unfair so that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.[2007] NZCA 600 CA 296/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2008
Case name
Timothy Justin Nevin v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction – charges of assault with a weapon and possession of an offensive weapon – whether Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of other cases involving inconsistent verdicts – whether Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of evidence given at trial.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NEVIN v R SC 12/2008 [20 May 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 May 2008
20 May 2008
Case name
New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Access Brokerage Limited (in liquidation) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Case number
SC 13/2008
Summary
Civil – appeal from strike-out application – second respondent in liquidation, first and third respondents brought actions against NZX in contract and tort - whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that NZX owes personal duties of care to individual clients or to individual brokers, to protect each of them from economic loss due to broker’s dishonesty or negligence in relation to client funds held on trust – whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the breach of such a duty (if owed) is sufficiently legally causative of loss – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Securities Commission is the “primary regulator” of the New Zealand Stock Exchange, and not NZX.2008] NZCA 25 CA236/06 22 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Jonathan Nuki Lummis Jarden v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – conspiracy to supply methamphetamine – appeal against sentence - whether a Court should use sentencing guidelines based on actual supply of specified weights of drugs when considering a sentence for conspiracy to supply an unspecified quantity of drugs - whether the Court of Appeal considered such a distinction when dismissing the appeal to that Court[2008] NZCA 48 CA292/07 5 March 2008
Media Releases
- sc 14 2008 jarden v r (PDF, 86 KB)
Substantive judgment
JARDEN v R SC 14/2008 [28 August 2008] (PDF, 38 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
JARDEN v R SC 14/2008 [9 May 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
9 May 2008
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Sentence of three years imprisonment
quashed. Sentence of two years six months imprisonment substituted.
28 August 2008
Case name
Ngai Tahu Properties Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Canterbury Regional Council
Case number
SC 15/2008
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) – competing resource consent applications to take (and use) water from a finite natural resource – whether the Court of Appeal majority assessed the priority of claims correctly – whether the “ready for notification” test should apply in such cases – how a consent authority decision not to proceed with notification under s 91 RMA should affect priority of claims.[2008] NZCA 71 CA69/07 19 March 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 24 June 2008
_________________
Interim decision released
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
_________________
Interim decision released
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript
Page 205 of 244