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
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited trading as Zurich New Zealand v Cognition Education Limited
Case number
SC 58/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the test for whether there is a dispute for the purposes of a stay application under Article 8 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 is whether there is an “arguable defence” and, as such, is the inverse of the test to apply for a summary judgment.[2013] NZCA 180 CA 867/2012
Result
Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that there will be no dispute for the purposes of art 8(1) of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 unless the defendant has an arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff’s claim as is sufficient to resist an application for summary
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 October 2013 (PDF, 376 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 188 (PDF, 196 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 55 (PDF, 83 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
Brett Stuart Wellm v The Queen
Case number
SC 63/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in length. [2009] NZCA 175 CA 581/2008
Dates
Notice of Abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
18 November 2013.
Case name
Guo Wei Deng v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) – Criminal Practice and Procedure – Witness not called – Appeal against conviction – Whether allegedly inadequate interpretation assistance constituted a breach of the applicant’s right under s 24(g) of the NZBORA – Whether counsel’s failure to call two witnesses at the request of the applicant resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2009] NZCA 445 CA 780/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GUO WEI DENG v R [2013] NZSC 100 [15 October 2013] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 October 2013
Case name
Harmon Lynn Wilfred, Carolyn Dare Wilfred Wilfred, Angela Marie Smalley, La Famia No 1 Limited, La Famia No 4 Limited v Kaiwan Gan and Yuzhen Yu
Case number
SC 65/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Stay of proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to discharge a stay – Whether there has been a breach of the appellants’ right to due process to have its case heard on appeal – Whether the appellants have been deprived of their rights to natural justice and fairness.[2013] NZCA 295 CA 184/2013
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The application for a stay is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
26 July 2013
Case name
Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.
Case number
SC 66/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement. [2013] NZCA 221 CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011; CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
GPM v JHM
Case number
SC 67/2013
Summary
Civil – Relationship Property – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the lower court’s relationship property division – whether the Court of Appeal failed to appropriately accommodate the applicant’ s disability – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify breaches of natural justice in the courts below – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the applicant’s application for recall. [2013] NZCA 166 CA 553/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 payable to the respondent.
27 August 2013.
______________________________
Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.
27 August 2013.
______________________________
Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GPM v JHM [2013] NZSC 84 [27 August 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Recall judgment
GPM v JHM [2013] NZSC 85 [12 September 2013] (PDF, 71 KB)
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No 1, National Standards Committee.
Case number
SC 68/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a lawyer could be proceeded against before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal or struck off for making a complaint against a Judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no legal or evidential threshold for referring matters to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that reasons need not be given for a decision by a Standards Committee to refer a matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in the disciplinary process –Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant a fair and impartial hearing.[2013] NZCA 230 CA 554/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 October 2013.
8 October 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christopher Jacob Junior Shadrock v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 496/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Case name
Terence Mario Tere The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 462/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Page 155 of 250