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
Michael Raymond Main v Kevin Evan Main
Case number
SC 56/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 2(3) – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the respondent had proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes – whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make s 2(3) finding – whether the respondent had complied with the Court of Appeal’ s order as to the filing of additional evidence – whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account evidence filed.CA 25/07 23 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 8 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MAIN v MAIN SC 56/2007 [8 October 2007] (PDF, 13 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Raymond Creedy v Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 57/2007
Summary
Summary Civil appeal – employment law – police officer dismissed after a tribunal established under s 12 of the Police Act 1958 found him guilty of a number of misconduct charges – personal grievance proceedings commenced in Employment Relations Authority – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that unjustifiable dismissal claim was out of time – whether there are “exceptional circumstances” for the purposes of ss 114(4) and 115 of Employment Relations Act 2000 – application of Wilkins & Field Ltd v Fortune [1998] 2 ERNZ 70 – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the actions of the s 12 tribunal could not be attributed to the Commissioner of Police and thus are not open to review in personal grievance proceedings.CA 234/06 24 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
19 October 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
23 April 2008
19 October 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
23 April 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 March 2008 (PDF, 311 KB)
Media Releases
- mediarelease sc572007 000 (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Neil Martin Clarke v New Zealand Police and Others
Case number
SC 58/2007
Summary
y Civil – application to review Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept application for filing – applicant had sought leave to appeal Court of Appeal’s decision that it had no jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal against a costs decision of an Associate Judge of the High Court – applicant seeking to overturn costs decision in the Court of Appeal.[2007] NZCA 294 CA 226/06 17 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,500 to the second respondent. 9 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Glenharrow Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 59/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – avoidance of GST under section 76 of Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – whether the High Court erred in its findings of fact relating to the value of the mining license purchased by the applicant - whether the High Court erred when it concluded that the purchase price for the mining license was grossly inflated – whether the evidence was such that only one conclusion was reasonably open to the Court – whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of incorrect findings of fact – whether, given the High Court finding that the transaction was a genuine arms length agreement, there was a basis for a finding under section 76 that the transaction defeated the scheme and purposes of the Act– whether an open market value should be used when determining GST obligations where a transaction is genuine and at arms length – whether the Court of Appeal erred by conflating the value of a loan used to purchase an asset with the consideration paid – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining the total consideration – whether it was open to the Court of Appeal to make a finding that the loan repayments amounted to an ‘ empty obligation’ – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of Peterson v CIR [2006] 3 NZLR 433CA 192/05 15 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 4 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 8 – 10 July 2008
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath , Anderson JJ
Case name
Shahram Aram v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – convicted of five drug offences –whether substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred – fresh evidence of corruption, conspiracy and perjury – seeking order quashing conviction and sentence or, alternatively, order for retrial. CA 407/06 2 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 December 2007
4 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ARAM V R SC 60/2007 [4 December 2007] (PDF, 15 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Christopher Cliff Morris v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 229A – using a tax document with intent to defraud – whether, under the Tax Administration Act 1994, employees of the Inland Revenue Department can give evidence in the prosecution – whether ss 81(1) and 81(3) of that Act preclude employees of the Inland Revenue Department giving evidence unless either the prosecution is initiated by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for offences under the Inland Revenue Acts or the evidence falls within one of the exceptions listed in s 81(4) – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to direct a new trial under s 382 of the Crimes Act 1961 – application for leave to appeal out of time.CA 120/04 4 November 2004
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 30 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MORRIS v R SC 61/2007 [30 October 2007] (PDF, 18 KB)
Case name
Campbell Robert Thom v Davys Burton
Case number
SC 62/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – negligence action against firm of solicitors – prenuptial agreement invalidly executed – as a result, property which was separate property under the prenuptial agreement was included in the matrimonial property division – whether the claim is barred by s 4(1) Limitation Act 1950 – whether the doctrine of reasonable discoverability applies, so that the damage was first suffered when the Family Court declined to give effect to the prenuptial agreement.CA 3/06 30 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. _________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
THOM v DAVYS BURTON SC 62/2007 [13 December 2007] (PDF, 18 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne Limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd) and Ors
Case number
SC 63/2007
Summary
Civil – strike-out – whether lower Courts erred in refusing to strike out cause of action in negligence – respondent company seeking contribution from applicant Council in proceedings against them arising from the Jody F Millennium grounding – whether Court of Appeal conflated negligence and statutory duty causes of action – whether there can be a duty of care to protect someone from loss arising from his or her legal liability for negligence – whether respondent entitled in these circumstances to claim that applicant owed parallel duties of care to other parties including the ship – whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding full costs against the applicant. CA 118/06 10 August 2007
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
19 January 2008
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
Jule Patrick Burns v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction for murder – whether verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether DNA evidence was properly admitted at trial.CA 152/2006 [2007] NZCA 308 23 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 March 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BURNS v R SC 65/2007 [5 March 2008] (PDF, 16 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 219 of 244