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
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Case name
Douglas John Williamson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence. [2015] NZCA 621 CA 398/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 April 2016
26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Blackwood Williamson v The Queen
Case number
SC 8/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence.[2015] NZCA 621 CA 399/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence.[2011] NZCA 135 CA 591/2010
Result
A An extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IVAN JAMES WILSON v R [2016] NZSC 47 2 May 2016 (PDF, 78 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 July 2016 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608 CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 June 2016 (PDF, 401 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Case name
Robert Erwood v The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 13/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal overlooked material points and therefore erred in dismissing the application for extension of time and awarding costs against the applicant.[2015] NZCA 620 CA 168/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2016
16 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
HC recall judgment
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617 CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 November 2016 (PDF, 575 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 113 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mangawhai Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association Inc v Kaipara District Council
Case number
SC 15/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 117–120 of the Local Government Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the scope of the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Act 2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs against the Association.[2015] NZCA 612 CA 331/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 May 2016
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 May 2016
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 106 of 250