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.
8 November 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
All years
Case name
James John Duncan Macfarlane v Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 80/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to remove a caveat over a property and grant vacant possession.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent
14 November 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent
14 November 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Marie Deanne Castle v Whakatane District Council
Case number
SC 81/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there are exceptional circumstances which warrant granting leave against a decision of the High Court dismissing an application for a declaration that rates assessed against properties owned by the applicant are invalid.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
30 October 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
30 October 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Toni Colin Reihana v Rakiura Titi Committee, Marama Cooper, Stewart Bull, Ron Bull and Sonia Rakiti
Case number
SC 82/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against stay of proceedings for abuse of process.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
3 December 2018
B The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
3 December 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Raymond Joseph Tukaki v The Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 83/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a surrender order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision not to refer the applicant’s case to the Minister of Justice.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 19 November 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Richard Prescott v District Court at North Shore and Malcolm Denmead
Case number
SC 84/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for judicial review of the Registrar’ s decision to require security for costs.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
19 November 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
19 November 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Anthony Donald Grooby v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge was not required to direct the jury on the standard of proof to which propensity evidence must be proved before the jury can consider it in reaching its verdict.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 26 November 2018
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 86/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2019 (PDF, 687 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 111 (PDF, 98 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Robt Jones Holdings Limited v Anthony John McCullagh and Stephen Mark Lawrence liquidators of Northern Crest Investments Limited
Case number
SC 87/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no requirement in s 292 that a voidable transaction diminish the pool of assets available to creditors.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Robt Jones Holdings Ltd v McCullagh [2018] NZCA 358).
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 30 April 2019 (PDF, 353 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 86 (PDF, 63 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
P v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the jury’s pattern of verdicts was inconsistent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 February 2019
15 February 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
P (SC 88/2018) v R [2019] NZSC 1 [15 February 2019] (PDF, 40 KB)
Case name
Karl Teangiotau Nuku v The Queen
Case number
SC 89/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that errors at trial were not capable of affecting the outcome of the trial – Whether an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal should be granted.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 20 November 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High/District Court Judgment
Not publicly available
Page 88 of 250