Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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
Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson and Luke Andrew Simpson and Janine Davina Sax as Trustees of the Luke and Janine Simpsons Family Trust
Case number
SC 16/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal to that Court. [2016] NZCA 3  CA 388/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JANINE DAVINA SAX v LUKE ANDREW SIMPSON [2017] NZSC 10   17 February 2017 (PDF, 129 KB)
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 3   Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson and Luke Andrew Simpson and Janine Davina Sax as Trustees of the Luke and Janine Simpsons Family Trust  27 January 2016 : not electronically available.
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Acorn Foundation Trust and Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Independent Group Trust
Case number
SC 17/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for requests by beneficiaries for access to trust documents – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for review of a trustee’ s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision not to order disclosure of trust documents.  [2016] NZCA 7   CA217/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622).
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).  We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
ERCEG v ERCEG [2015] NZHC 594 [27 March 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
ERCEG v ERCEG [2016] NZCA 7 [4 February 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
IVAN VLADIMIR JOSEPH ERCEG v LYNETTE THERESE ERCEG AND DARRYL EDWARD GREGORY AS TRUSTEES OF ACORN FOUNDATION TRUST [2016] NZSC 69 [17 June 2016] (PDF, 9 KB)
Supreme court decision
Non-publication order dismissed: IVAN VLADIMIR JOSEPH ERCEG v LYNETTE THERESE ERCEG AND DARRYL EDWARD GREGORY AS TRUSTEES OF ACORN FOUNDATION TRUST [2016] NZSC 135 [14 October 2016] (PDF, 187 KB)
Substantive judgment
ERCEG v ERCEG [2017] NZSC 28 [8 March 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 18/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the applicant. [2016] NZCA 45  CA 855/2012
Result
A   The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.               
B   The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
29 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN [2016] NZSC 45   29 April 2016 (PDF, 75 KB)
Recall judgment
MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN [2016] NZSC 77 [24 June 2016] (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
CHAPMAN v RABSON HC WN CIV 2012-485-2107     10 December 2012
Judgment appealed from

RABSON V CHAPMAN [2016] NZCA 45    4 March 2016

CA judgment

RABSON v CHAPMAN CA855/2012 [2014] NZCA 158    29 April 2014
Case name
Graham D’Arcy-Smith v Natural Habitats Limited
Case number
SC 19/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Employment Court erred in determining that the applicant was not an employee – Whether the Employment Court erred in not addressing a matter argued by the applicant.[2015] NZEmpC 123  ARC 57/14
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the respondent.
28 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GRAHAM WILLIAM D'ARCY-SMITH v NATURAL HABITATS LIMITED [2016] NZSC 46    28 April 2016 (PDF, 109 KB)
Judgment appealed from
GRAHAM D'ARCY-SMITH v NATURAL HABITATS LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 123    28 July 2015
Case name
New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited v Weller & Ors
Case number
SC 20/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 7A of the Holidays Act 1981. [2016] NZCA 19    CA 313/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
27 April 2016
Employment Court decision
NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LIMITED v WELLER and 63 others NZEmpCCHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 74       16 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LTD v ANDREW WELLER & OTHERS [2016] NZSC 44 27 April 2016 (PDF, 127 KB)
Judgment appealed from

NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LIMITED v ANDREW WELLER AND 63 OTHERS
[2016] NZCA 19    22 February 2016
Case name
John Morgan MacKenzie v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the Limitation Act 1950.   [2015] NZHC 1876    CIV 2012-470-000977
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                      
1 June 2016                                                                                           __
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 60    1 June 2016 (PDF, 12 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 110 [23 August 2016] (PDF, 12 KB)
Judgment appealed from

MACKENZIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1876     11 August 2015
Case name
Isaac Paparoa v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the imposition of a Minimum Period of Imprisonment.[2015] NZCA 234  CA 389/2014
Result
A  Extension of time for filing application for leave to appeal granted.
B  Application for leave to appeal dismissed.                            
30 May 2016                                                                                                                 __
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ISAAC PAPAROA v R [2016] NZSC 59     30 May 2016 (PDF, 113 KB)
Judgment appealed from

THOMPSON & PAPAROA V R CA368/2014 [2015] NZCA 234    11 June 2015
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48  CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.                                                                                                                       

19 June 2017                            
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ not electronically available
Case name
AL v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.

19 June 2017                       
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Case name
SL v The Queen
Case number
SC 25/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury  [2016] NZCA 48  CA 162/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

__________________________

A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed dismissed.
31 March 2017
Hearing

21 and 22 November 2016

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Page 107 of 250