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.
22 November 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 22 November 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 22 November 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
All years
Case name
Barry John Hart and others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 35/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Powers of the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to adjourn the appeal pending an appeal that was filed earlier in the High Court challenging the legal entitlement of the Official Assignee to liquidate the second, third and fourth applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Official Assignee’ s argument that it had the function and powers to determine whether the appeal would be prosecuted by the bankrupt applicant[2013] NZCA 94 CA 729/2012
Additional document
Dates
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65 CA 282/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 154 (PDF, 80 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Brooks Homes Limited, My Refund Limited and Stephen Cavell Brooks v NZ Tax Refunds Limited
Case number
SC 37/2013
Summary
Interim injunction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where an appellate court disagrees with a lower court’s finding that there is no serious issue to be tried, the appellate court is then entitled and required to carry out its own assessment of the balance of convenience and the overall justice of the case.[2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 June 2013.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 June 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
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
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
- MR [2014] NZSC 146 (PDF, 266 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcripts
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
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
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
- MR [2014] NZSC 34 (PDF, 87 KB)
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.
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.
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
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
- MR [2014] NZSC 121 (PDF, 91 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 13 February 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Page 153 of 250