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
Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 81/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 864/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- [2013] NZSC 102 (PDF, 13 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust v Church Property Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 83/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trust law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the terms of the trust arising from the public subscription of funds for the erection of Christchurch Cathedral were irrelevant to determining the current obligations of the trustees or terms of the trust, and that the terms of the Cathedral Trust are to be found exclusively in the Provincial Ordinances authorising transfer of the land for the establishment of Christchurch Cathedral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the terms of the Cathedral Trust allow the trustees to decide to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral and do not require the trustees to maintain the existence of the Cathedral or repair it in order that it can continue to operate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first respondent was free to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral notwithstanding the terms of the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Act 2003 and its preceding legislation. [2013] NZCA 331 CA 57/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the first respondent $2,500.
2 December
Case name
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted. The question of law for determination on the appeal is:Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 40 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Hearing
19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Mark Heteraka v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Identification evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 45(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act.[2013] NZHCA 339 CA 592/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MARK HETERAKA v R [2013] NZSC 119 [13 November 2013] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 November 2013.
Case name
William Duffield McKee v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 8(2) – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not mean that persons who are legitimately able to be prescribed cannabis for medical purposes should be able to grow the plant for this purpose, given the absence of lawful retail suppliers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not allow a GreenCross card holder lawfully to supply another GreenCross card holder with cannabis grown for medicinal purposes – Constitutional challenge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the courts cannot overrule, repeal, revoke, amend or not apply provisions of the law which are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or which contravene cl 29 of the Magna Carta 1297 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not misdirect the jury – Entrapment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the undercover officer did not go further than creating an “unexceptional opportunity” for the applicant to offend.[2013] NZHCA 387 CA 781/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is declined.
14 November 2013.
Case name
John Douglas McKenzie v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act ss 8, 12A and 27(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “statement” in s 27(1) of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply the “co-conspirator’s rule” under s 12A of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable.[2013] NZHCA 378 CA 795/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
11 November 2013
Case name
CT v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient consideration to ss 25(a) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in deciding that no miscarriage of justice had arisen because of delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the significance of the evidence unavailable to the defendant because of the time that had elapsed between the offending and the criminal proceedings. [2013] NZCA 383 CA 188/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.
9 December 2013
_______________
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.
30 October 2014
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.
9 December 2013
_______________
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 April 2014 SC 88/2013 (PDF, 264 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 155 (PDF, 263 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
CT v R [2013] NZSC 142 [9 December 2013] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
CT (SC 88/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 155 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 268 KB)
Case name
Save Kapiti Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 89/2013
Summary
Civil – Resource Consent – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 171, 104 – whether the High Court erred in determining that permitted activities and unimplemented resource consents do not fall within the scope of “environment” for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) – whether the High Court correctly applied the tests set out in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate.[2013] NZHC 2104 Civ 2013 485 724
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
14 November 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 90/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 206 CA 362/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements as fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the respondents.
14 November 2013.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Page 157 of 250