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
Ifeanyi Jude Akulue  v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2013
Summary
Pretrial ruling.[2013] NZCA 84  CA 675/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:

Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?

8 May 2013

____________________

Appeal dismissed.

19 September 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages.  [2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed.  Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014   
_________________
A  The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2015] NZSC 34 [15 October 2014] (PDF, 421 KB)
Recall judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 33 [1 April 2015] (PDF, 342 KB)
Transcripts

Hearing 12 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Hearing date recall : 8 December 2014
Case name
MGY v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, in its pre-trial decision, had incorrectly widened the scope of ss 132, 134 and 2(1B) of the Crimes Act to include the conduct alleged against the applicant.CRI 2011 044 3042
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:  Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?
2 July 2013
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Y (SC 40/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 34 [3 April 2014] (PDF, 124 KB)
Hearing
5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Bradley Matenga Kahui  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Parole Act 2002 – Whether the sentencing Judge erred in convicting and discharging the applicant instead of imposing a short sentence of imprisonment which would have ordinarily entitled him to credit for time served on remand.[2013] NZCA 124 CA 190/2013
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: was the sentence imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002?

14 May 2013.
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the p\appeal is deemed to be dismissed
16 May 2013.
Case name
Samson Duffy  v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2013
Summary
Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a pre-trial decision of the District Court Judge to join the charges relating to the two complainants  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the jury verdicts in respect of the first complainant were reasonable on the basis of the evidence admitted.[2013] NZCA 117  CA 516/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 June 2013.
Case name
Andrew John Caplen Beavis v Elizabeth Joy De Vere and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 43/2013
Summary
Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment indicates bias against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment contain irrelevant statements or statements not supported by the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal had proper regard to the decision of the Family Court judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in departing from analysis provided by accountants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s business arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there were special circumstance justifying a departure order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that retrospective orders may be made under the Child Support Act 1991, and in making such an order – Whether the Court of Appeal otherwise erred in its interpretation of the Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have regard to certain relevant considerations and had regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal accepted that s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 was available, and erred in doing so – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.[2013] NZCA 124  CA 190/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 together with reasonable disbursement payable to the first respondent.
19 August 2013.

Application for recall dismissed.

20 September 2013
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited
Case number
SC 44/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid. [2013] NZCA 101  CA 178/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored. 
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
Media Releases
Transcript
Hearing date : 13 February 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 45/2013
Summary
Recall of judgments – Whether the High Court’s decision erred in regards to the law governing the recall of judgments – Whether the Court of Appeal’s delay in processing the applicant’s appeal constitutes a breach of natural justice warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.[2012] NZHC 2802   CIV 2012 404 4128
Dates

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C  Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 November 2013
Case name
Napier Tool & Die Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited and others
Case number
SC 46/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Intellectual Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in equating respondents’ effort in devising their product with level of protection available under copyright law for respondents’ copyright works – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for breach of copyright by divorcing the substantiality enquiry from enquiries into objective similarity and causation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remitting proceeding to High Court for enquiry into damages and should have directed determination of respondents’ loss based on quantum evidence led at trial.[2013] NZCA 171  CA 271/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

12 September 2013
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 47/2013
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 131  CA 532/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 47 2013 102 2013 reekie v attorney general (PDF, 240 KB)
Recall judgment
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 98 [30 July 2014] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Page 148 of 245