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
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation) v Rhys James Cain and Bruce Donald Gemmell as liquidators of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 34/2014
Summary
[2014] NZHC 165 Civ 2013 409 1779
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sajo Oyang Corporation and Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Limited v The Ministry for Primary Industries and The Director - General of the Ministry for Primary Industries
Case number
SC 35/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-defendant third parties do not have standing to participate in an application relating to the special circumstances exception to automatic forfeiture of property following conviction for specified fisheries offences under s 255C of the Fisheries Act 1996[2014] NZCA 46 CA 167/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Anthony Blair v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal –Evidence Act 2006, ss 46 and 126 – Whether voice identification evidence was admitted at trial contrary to the provisions of s 46 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admitting the voice identification evidence did not materially affect the result and therefore there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the case against the defendant did not depend “substantially” on the voice identification evidence within the meaning of the word contained at section 126.[2014] NZCA 101 CA 92/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.
21 July 2014
21 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAUL ANTHONY BLAIR v R [2014] NZSC 92 21 July 2014 (PDF, 43 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Charles York and Alpine Glacier Motel Limited v Westland District Council
Case number
SC 37/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act.[2014] NZCA 59 CA 774/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bruce Franklin Charnley v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 2014
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 131B(1) – Whether or not the conviction for sexual grooming was consistent with the reality of the situation – Whether or not the conviction for sexual grooming was consistent with the purpose of the offence – Whether or not a sentence of preventative detention should have been imposed.
[2013] NZCA 226 CA 426/2012
Case name
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to waive the requirement to pay security for costs.[2014] NZCA 65 CA 524/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment of appeal having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
7 November 2014
7 November 2014
Case Number
SC 39/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 40/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 137 CA 116/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 40/2014
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v Skyward Aviation 2008 Limited
Case number
SC 41/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the amount payable by TOWER if Skyward buys a replacement house is not subject to any limitation except that the amount must not be greater than the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that when buying a replacement house a customer is not obliged to choose a house of comparable size, construction, condition and style as its existing house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that once it has been established that the house is damaged beyond economic repair, it is for the customer, not TOWER, to decide whether to rebuild on site, or to rebuild elsewhere, or to buy a replacement house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that TOWER did not have the right to decide whether the house will be repaired, rebuilt or replaced pursuant to the express policy provision that “In all cases we have the option whether to make payment, rebuild, replace or repair your house” .[2014] NZCA 76 CA 563/2013 CA 709/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are granted (Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2014] NZCA 76).
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2014 (PDF, 362 KB)
Media Releases
- sc41 2014towerinsuranceltdvskywardaviation2008ltd press (PDF, 191 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385 Crimes Act 1961 – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted an adjournment – Whether the Court of Appeal pre-determined the case – Whether relevant evidence was not properly considered by the Court of Appeal – Whether expert evidence was wrongly admitted at trial. [2014] NZCA 83 CA 101/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Kohai v R [2014] NZCA 83).
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Page 133 of 244