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.

14 May 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 92 KB)

All years

Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Department of Corrections and another.
Case number
SC 35/2009
Summary
Civil – Disciplinary proceedings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the decision of the Hearing Adjudicator to refer a charge to a Visiting Justice was not subject to s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly found the decision of the Hearing Adjudicator did not breach natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 134 of the Corrections Act 2004 does not require a Hearing Adjudicator to provide notice to a prisoner that his or her charge is being referred to a Visiting Justice, or to allow the prisoner the opportunity to be heard on that referral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Hearing Adjudicator had not taken into account irrelevant circumstances – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that s 134(2)(a) of the Corrections Act does not exclude consideration of a prisoner’ s past disciplinary record.[2009] NZCA 129   CA  318/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ian Russell Geary v The Psychologists Board and another
Case number
SC 36/2009
Summary
Civil – cross-examination of witnesses in judicial review proceedings – application by Mr Geary for leave to cross-examine witnesses who had provided affidavits on behalf of the Psychologists Board in a judicial review of decisions of the Board in disciplinary matters concerning Mr Geary – whether the rule imposing a requirement of leave to cross-examine witnesses in applications for judicial review is contrary to statute, and is not a rule that can be made by a Court – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to re-examine the validity of the rule – whether there was a proper basis for the High Court to deny the plaintiff the ability to cross-examine the first respondent’s witness.[2009] NZCA 134   CA  818/2008  9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $2,500 to the first respondent.
24 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
GPM v The Queen
Case number
SC 37/2009
Summary
Appeal against pre-trial ruling. Police investigating a burglary stopped a car in which the appellant was a passenger. Whether stopping the car was lawful despite police acting under a wrong statutory power when an alternative statutory power was available; Whether the continued search of the appellant’ s car after what had initially been thought to be weapon was actually a metal thermos was lawful; Whether evidence obtained during the continued search of the car and the resulting searches of the appellant and the appellant’ s house was admissible.[2009] NZCA 121   CA  743/2008   6 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Case name
Shane Charles Wenzel  v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against decision of District Court Judge ordering trial by Judge alone under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the incorporation into s 361D(3)(b) of an accused’s right to trial by jury requires an assessment of the weight of an accused’s right to jury trial in the circumstances of the case and the potential length of any sentence that might be imposed on conviction – Whether the s 361D limit on an accused’s right to jury trial can be demonstratively justified under s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2009] NZCA 130   CA  31/2009   8 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 9 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited and others
Case number
SC 39/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – application of the Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading (“the Hague-Visby Rules”) to a grounding of a ship owned by the appellant – whether by reason of the conduct of the master of the vessel the appellant is not entitled to rely on the protection of Article IV Rule 2(a) – whether the Hague-Visby Rules depart from the prior common law – whether the history behind the Hague-Visby Rules is relevant to interpretation – whether the interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) should have regard to the factual context – whether the factual context warrants an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) that results in the appellant being liable – whether an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) which results in the appellant being liable is consistent with purpose and policy of the Hague-Visby Rules – whether an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) which results in the appellant being liable is consistent with Article III Rule 2[2009] NZCA 135   CA  519/2007   9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 July 2009
Case name
Christopher Bede Ward v Diane Mary Ward
Case number
SC 40/2009
Summary
Civil – Family – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that an agreement for the sale and purchase of shares was a settlement for the purposes of s 182(1) of the Family Proceedings Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that for the purposes of s 182(6) of the Act a matrimonial property agreement was to be considered by itself and not as part of an overall transaction – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that access to s 182(1) could be gained where it was necessary in the interests of fairness and justice to do so, and thereafter the remedial discretion was a broad one to be exercised in the manner which achieved a fair result taking into account the total background – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to disallow Mr W’s separate property interests subsumed by the overall transaction.[2009] NZCA 139  CA 309/2008  9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted  in part.
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 41/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that as the Appellant was not a participant in the statutory scheme under review the Appellant did not possess public interest standing to review the identified pleaded decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has no application to decision making under the Official Information Act 1982CIV 2006 – 485-2161  20 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.  Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860  22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.  Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter David Buddle v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961 – Sexual offending – Criminal procedure – Exercise of s 374 discretion to discharge jury without their giving of a verdict – Whether trial Judge had authority to discharge jury at first trial on “a hung jury aspect” – Whether second trial a nullity in respect of all charges – Whether miscarriage of justice established.[2009] NZCA 184 CA 416/2008  14 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
22 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
 Result

Appeal allowed, Convictions set aside. New Trial ordered on three counts.

26 November 2009
 Hearing
13 August 2009
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against refusal to grant bail pending appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by applying the wrong test – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by applying too rigid or too high a standard – whether the Court of Appeal failed properly to apply the correct statutory factors set out in ss 8 and 14 of the Bail Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account or accord due weight to the substantial miscarriage of justice allegedly suffered by the appellant[2009] NZCA 202 CA 190/2009    21 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed