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
Yao Wei He v Zhixiong Chen
Case number
SC 88/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for leave to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal of the decision of the High Court. [2016] NZCA 340 CA435/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors
Case number
SC 89/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process.[2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 March 2017 (PDF, 360 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 151 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Demissie Tefera Asgedom v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants were not materially prejudiced by the form of the indictment – Whether the applicants were prejudiced by the addition of a new alleged party to the offence part way through the trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s were not prejudiced by non-disclosure of certain material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the second applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2016] NZCA 334 CA451/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
25 October 2016
25 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nebiyou Tefera Demissie v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants were not materially prejudiced by the form of the indictment – Whether the applicants were prejudiced by the addition of a new alleged party to the offence part way through the trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s were not prejudiced by non-disclosure of certain material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the second applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2016] NZCA 334 CA533/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
25 October 2016
25 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that information obtained from a third party without a search warrant or production order is admissible as evidence in the applicant’ s trial. [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Result
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 disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
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 disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Case name
J v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 93/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 103(2) – Whether High Court erred in holding the District Court was wrong to find that the applicant was unable because of personal injury to return to pre-injury employment.[2016] NZHC 1683 CIV-2015-412-000125
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Leave hearing date : 25 November 2016
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren v Michael David Kidd
Case number
SC 94/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court finding that an issue estoppel can arise in New Zealand proceedings based on findings made by a foreign court –Whether the Court of Appeal then erred in upholding the direction of the High Court for a summary account. [2016] NZCA 401 CA 247/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Zacharius Rakena v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice had occurred in relation to the trial Judge’ s decision not to poll the jury after the verdict was delivered – Whether the trial Judge erred in not making further enquiry into the jury process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the jury’s verdict was reasonable. [2016] NZCA 357 CA747/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
18 October 2016
18 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ZACHARIUS RAKENA v R [2016] NZSC 137 18 October 2016 (PDF, 88 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 97/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 February 2017 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 115 (PDF, 263 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 23 November 2017 (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Page 114 of 250