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.

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
Kunal Nand Reddy v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence of good character – That failure of trial counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s good character caused a miscarriage of justice – Trial process – That the trial Judge’ s directions were insufficiently clear – That the process by which the jury delivered its verdicts was unsafe – Accessory after the fact – That the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 71(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.[2011] NZCA 181   CA 75/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 November 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260   CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EDWARDS v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL SC 67/2011 [5 July 2011] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial where no direction given to jury on proper use of expert evidence.[2011] NZCA 191   CA 23/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited v Douglas Norman Scott
Case number
SC 69/2011
Summary
Civil – Insurance – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision holding High Court incorrect to strike out respondent’s proceeding – Whether proceeding out of time – Limitation Act 1950 – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding it arguable that respondent’s cause of action accrued on or after 28 September 2000 – Distinction between occurrence of insured event and proof of insured event – Whether English authority on limitation and application of limitation statutes to insurance policies relevant in the context of contingency insurance policies for a fixed benefit payable under a critical illness policy in New Zealand – Relevance of respondent’s eventual cancellation of policy – Consistency of Court of Appeal’s decision with principles in Trustees Executors Ltd v Murray [2007] NZSC 27, [2007] 3 NZLR 721. [2011] NZCA 214   CA 452/2010
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.

22 September 2011
Case name
Keith Allenby v H, Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board and Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 70/2011
Summary
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.30 June 2011.[2011] NZCA 251   CA 586/2010
Result
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLENBY v H SC 70/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLENBY v H SC [9 May 2012] (PDF, 310 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

A. Leave to appeal is granted. 
B. The approved grounds are: 
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

26 August 2011

_________________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
David Mitchell v Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 74/2011
Summary
[2010] NZCA 385   CA 504/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 September 2011.
Case name
Robert Frank Terry v Rosalind Megan McLellan and The Public Trustee
Case number
SC 75/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Trustee powers – That the High Court failed to take into account the fact that directions in previous proceedings between the parties had not been followed – That the High Court made various errors of fact and law.Civ  2010 4189 123
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 August 2011.
Case name
Marcell Sydney Geros v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction – Whether defence counsel advice to plead guilty caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether defence counsel prevented relevant evidence being adduced – Sentencing – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Application for bail to prepare the case.[2011] NZCA 122  CA 321/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011.
Case name
Paul Robert Devcich and others v AMI Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 78/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Arson – Applicant claims indemnification against respondent insurer for fire damage and stolen property in respect of deliberately started fire at his Auckland property – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find on civil standard of proof that applicant himself responsible for starting fire – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that High Court’s approach did not apply an appropriate standard of proof and imposed too high a standard for respondent to meet – Whether Court of Appeal did not defer appropriately to High Court’s factual findings.[2011] NZCA 266   CA 522/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 August 2011.
Page 180 of 250