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
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000. [2011] NZCA 132 CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
- media release sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:
A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?
B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?
A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?
B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?
22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Shane Andrew Ellis v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Juries Act 1981 – Applicant convicted in High Court at Wellington by jury trial on three counts of importing methamphetamine – Jury selected in accordance with Juries Act – Whether trial was unfair as jury unrepresentative of population, in particular New Zealand’ s rural population, and did not constitute trial by applicant’s peers.[2011] NZCA 90 CA 739/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ELLIS v R SC 53/2011 [2 June 2011] (PDF, 55 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 June 2011.
Case name
Anthony Phillip Musson v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 55/2011
Summary
Civil – Fisheries levies – That the District Court erred in granting judgment to the Ministry of Fisheries against the appellant.Civ 2011 425 043
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the sum of $1500.00 plus disbursements.
27 June 2011.
Case name
John George Russell v The Taxation Review Authority & Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 56/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bias – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that any apparent bias on the part of Judge Barber in the Taxation Review Authority was “cured” by the effective rehearing held by Justice Wylie in the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant matters or gave insufficient weight to relevant matters or made erroneous factual findings.[2011] NZCA 158 CA 65/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Case name
Mahana Makarini Edmonds v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Party offences – Section 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Appellant was convicted of manslaughter after Mr Pahau, one of his associates, killed Mr Niwa through a single stab wound inflicted by a knife - Whether the jury must be directed that knowledge of the possession of the particular type of weapon used in the commission of the principal offence is required under s 66(2). [2011] NZCA 147 CA 588/2010
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 October 2011 SC 57/2011 (PDF, 267 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 159 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
EDMONDS v R SC 57/2011 [15 August 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
EDMONDS v R SC 57/2011 [20 December 2011] (PDF, 201 KB)
Case name
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164 CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 11 October 2012
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Case name
Marta Hayes v Judith Guerin
Case number
SC 59/2011
Summary
Civil – Administration Act 1969 – Family Protection Act 1955 – Dispute over will –Costs ¬– Whether appellant ought to have been made liable for costs in Court of Appeal following unsuccessful application for extension of time within which to appeal 2009 High Court decision ¬– Whether related lower court judgments were made without jurisdiction; were void ab initio; were erroneous; and thus necessitate a remedy in restitution.[2010] NZCA 592 CA 466/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAYES v GUERIN SC 59/2011 [3 August 2011] (PDF, 42 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2500 to the respondent.
3 August 2011.
3 August 2011.
Case name
Warren Bruce Fenemor v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of propensity evidence –That some items of evidence admitted were inadmissible propensity evidence – That the trial Judge’s directions on the use of that evidence were inadequate – That the trial Judge erred in preventing the appellant from demonstrating his account of the incident.[2011] NZCA 206 CA 457/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in part. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold, following R v Degnan that propensity evidence may be led by the Crown despite that evidence having previously been led at a trial which resulted in an acquittal.
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
Media Releases
- media release fenemor (PDF, 82 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 60 2011 warren bruce fenemor v the queen (PDF, 130 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 4 October 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Pacific Farms Limited and Pacific Farms Development Limited v Palmerston North City Council and Palmerston North Industrial & Residential Developments Limited
Case number
SC 64/2011
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 – Issue of consents without notice ¬– High Court declining to quash consents or grant declarations on terms sought by appellants – Whether Court of Appeal correct to set aside all of High Court’s declarations (and leave feasibility of a rehearing to the parties) on basis that late revelation of a relevant consent and regional plan meant that the critical issues were unable to be addressed in any meaningful way – Whether, in light of that finding, Court of Appeal correct to order parties to bear their own costs and set aside High Court costs orders – Extent of differentiation and/or overlap of functions and jurisdiction of Territorial Authorities and Regional Councils – Effect of regional plan on status of activity for notification purposes – Effect of principles of natural justice on Court of Appeal decision, particularly its decision to determine proceedings on a ground not the subject of pleadings or submissions by the parties. [2011] NZCA 187 CA 116/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
6 July 2011.
6 July 2011.
Case name
Augustus Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2011
Summary
Criminal – Party liability – That the trial Judge’s directions on s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 were inadequate – Trial process – That the process by which the jury delivered its verdicts was unsafe.[2011] NZCA 181 CA 75/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 November 2011.
11 November 2011.
Page 179 of 250