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
Riley Campbell v The Queen
Case number
SC 121/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the applicant’s interview with police was admissible – Whether cross-examination of the complainant on sexual matters should have been allowed[2014] NZCA 376 CA 378/2014 [2015] NZCA 452 CA 605/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 December 2015
17 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RILEY CAMPBELL v R [2015] NZSC 197 17 December 2015 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
M Hayes v Family Court and Judith Guerin
Case number
SC 122/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Family Protection Act 1955, s 3A – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim that the Family Court had no jurisdiction under s 3A(2) Family Protection Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no proceeding in the High Court – Whether High Court erred in allowing further respondents to join proceedings.[2015] NZCA 470 CA 604/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 21 December 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Christopher Roger King v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to allow a sentence discount for the applicant’ s previous good character.[2015] NZCA 475 CA 19/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 18 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald
Case number
SC 124/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.[2015] NZCA 479 CA 251/2014
Result
A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anthony Paul Mount v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction. [2015] NZCA 489 CA 674/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 May 2016
19 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT v R [2016] NZSC 56 [19 May 2016] (PDF, 159 KB)
Case name
David Ingram Rowley v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 572/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC ¶22-011).In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland; Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge; John Carter and Brent O’Callaghan and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 127/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the High Court was entitled to make an award of indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant’s appeal seeking a stay of enforcement was moot, the debts at issue having been discharged.[2015] NZCA 498 CA 262/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay each of the second and third respondents costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Simon John Moffatt Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury)
Case number
SC 128/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the priority of resource consent applications – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that there had been no derogation of the applicant’s rights – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had no legitimate expectation that a resource consent would be granted.[2015] NZCA 509 CA 745/2013
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 129/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in resurrecting an appeal deemed abandoned – Whether the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction in awarding costs to the respondent. [2015] NZCA 543 CA 156/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 16 February 2016 The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
15 March 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King v PFL Finance Limited and Craig Becroft
Case number
SC 130/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Receivership – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 18 of the Receivership Act 1993 and s 121 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation of loss – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of compellability under the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether there was oppressive enforcement of a credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.[2015] NZCA 517 CA 74/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. If the applicants are not legally aided, costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents. If the applicants are legally aided, we make an order under s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011 that, had the applicants not been legally aided, they would have been liable for costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 133 of 250