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.

11 July 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)

All years

Case name
Philip Joseph Fava v Aral Property Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 8/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether a court is permitted to entertain an application when the party making the application is represented by a lawyer (or a firm including a lawyer) whose conduct is in issue in the proceedings in a manner contemplated by Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 13.5.3 – Whether a lawyer’s conduct will be in issue in proceedings for the purpose of r 13.5.3 where the case before the court protects or furthers the lawyer’s own interests.[2012] NZCA 585  CA 500/2012
Dates

Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection.   [2012] NZCA 609  CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b)  Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants? 1 May 2013 ______________________ A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent.  They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts. 10 June 2014 ___________________

Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.

29 September 2014
Media Releases
Transcript

Hearing date : 5 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping J J.
Case name
Neal Medhurst Nicholls v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610  CA 624/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Case name
Wayne Leslie Douglas v The Queen
Case number
SC 11/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610  CA 623/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction for sexual violation by rape – evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge had applied s 44 of the Evidence Act correctly in excluding certain evidence relating to the  reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. [2012] NZCA 602  CA 862/2011
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) in light of ss 7 and 44 of the Evidence Act 2006, the Judge should have permitted the applicant to lead all (or some) of the proposed evidence; and
(ii) the apparent inconsistency of the jury’s verdicts warranted the allowing of the appeal.
18 April 2013
Hearing
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2013
Summary
Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against sentence – Whether in light of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, which is expressly retrospective, prisoners with recognised intellectual disabilities who were sentenced prior to that Act entering into force are entitled to be resentenced and eligible for detention in intellectual disability care under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of that Act – Whether the appellant, as a prisoner with a recognised intellectual disability is entitled to the benefit of that law change and should, instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment, be detained in compulsory intellectual disability care – Whether the sentencing court and Court of Appeal failed to understand and consider the appellant’s intellectual disability[2012] NZCA 581  CA 162/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 April 2013.
Case name
Robert Keith Jeffries v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Sexual violation, inducing an indecent act, indecent assault – Mild mental retardation – Jurisdiction of trial judge to decide the question of fitness to stand trial in circumstances where he has taken over the hearing from another judge – Failure to provide adequate accommodations at the beginning of, and during proceedings – Whether use of the dock in criminal trials is lawful – Substantial miscarriage of justice.   [2012] NZCA 608  CA 742/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2013.
Case name
Independent Fisheries Limited and Clearwater Land Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 15/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery had exercised his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) for proper purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister’ s exercise of powers under the Act did not infringe the principle that the executive should not deprive persons of access to the courts without explicit statutory authority. [2012] NZCA 601 CA 438/2012
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants must pay by way of costs:
 (a) the sum of $4,000 to the first respondent; and
 (b) the sum of $4,000 to the second respondents –
 plus, in each case, reasonable

18 April 2013
ase Number
SC 15/2013
Case name
DMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 49 – Admissibility of convictions of a co-accused – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that where evidence of the convictions of a co-accused were admitted as circumstantial evidence the prejudicial effect of the evidence was likely to be less than the prejudice arising where that evidence conclusively proved an element of the offence. [2012] NZCA 605  CA 448/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 March 2013
Case name
Jacob Adriaan Britz v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 4(1) – whether the Court of Appeal was incorrect to apply the high threshold set out in SR v R [2011] NZCA 409 in circumstances where the applicant was seeking retrospectively to assert incompetence.[2012] NZCA 606  CA 161/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Page 145 of 245