Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Upcoming cases

                                        

As at  19 February 2018

Sittings of the Supreme Court are open to the public.

Upcoming fixtures are set out below.          

Fixtures list for printing:

Information is added as it becomes available.

 

February 2018

 

Date of hearing

20 February 2018

Case & type

SC 86/2017

Graham Thomas Rowe
SJ Zindel and H Cuthill

v

The Queen
PD Marshall

Criminal Appeal

Judges

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Case Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.

Grounds on which leave was granted

The approved question is whether Mr Rowe should have been convicted

Supreme Court leave application decision

GRAHAM THOMAS ROWE v R [2017] NZSC 157 [12 October 2017]

Court of Appeal decision ROWE v R [2017] NZCA 316 [25 July 2017

 

 

Date of hearing

22 February 2018

Case & type

SC 103/2017

Trends Publishing International Limited
G P Curry and H D Enright

v

Advicewise People Limited
SM Bisley and OC Gascoigne

Callaghan Innovation
SM Bisley and OC Gascoigne

Mediaworks Radio Limited
SM Bisley and OC Gascoigne

Webstar, A Division of Blue Star Group (New Zealand) Limited
SM Bisley and OC Gascoigne
Civil Appeal

Judges

Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

Case Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, pt 14 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining “classes of creditors” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants had not disclosed adequate information to the creditors.

Grounds on which leave was granted

The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.

Supreme Court leave application decision

TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LIMITED [2017] NZSC 167 [7 November 2017]

Court of Appeal decision

TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LIMITED [2017] NZCA 365 [24 August 2017]

High Court decision

ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LTD AND ORS v TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LTD [2016] NZHC 2119 [7 September 2016]

 

March 2018

 

Date of hearing

6 and 7 March 2018
Case & type

SC 65/2017             

The Attorney-General
RT Rishworth QC, DJ Perkins and GM Taylor

v

Arthur William Taylor
In person

 

Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
R K Francois

Human Rights Commission (as intervener)
A S Butler and M W McMenamin


Civil Appeal and Cross appeal
                                                          

Judges

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Case summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.

Grounds on which leave was granted The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following questions
(i)  The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(II) Mr Taylor has standing
Supreme Court leave application decision

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2017] NZSC 131 [30 August 2017]

Court of Appeal decision

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TAYLOR & ORS [2017] NZCA 215   26 May 2017

 

 

Date of hearing

20 March 2018
Case & type

SC 94/2017

Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker
JW Maassen and SF Clark

v

Wallace Douglas Hodder and Ann Adele Hodder
ME Parker and J Eckford

Kadd Farm Limited

Civil Appeal

Judges

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Arnold JJ

Case Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was moot and that separate leave to appeal the High Court cost awards was required.

Grounds on which leave was granted

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 

Supreme Court leave application decision

BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZSC 171 [17 November 2017

Court of Appeal decision

BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZCA 355 [3 August 2017]

High Court decision

HODDER v BAKER [2016] NZHC 2384 [6 October 2016]

 

 

Date of hearing

22 March 2018
Case & type

SC 79/2017

Z
RJ Hooker

v

The Queen
ZR Johnston

SC 7/2018

M
JG Krebs

v

The Queen
ZR Johnston

Criminal Appeal

Judges

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Case Summary

Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(1) – Whether errors in the charging document relating to the applicant meant that he was convicted of conduct that did not constitute an offence at the time it occurred

Grounds on which leave was granted

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal against conviction for ill treatment of a child under s 195 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Supreme Court leave application decision

Z (SC 79/2017) v R [2017] NZSC 172 [17 November 2017]

Court of Appeal decision M (CA522/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 274 [29 June 2017

 

 

Date of hearing

26 March 2018
Case & type

SC 102/2017

Hinemanu Ngaronoa and Sandra Wilde
RK Francois and R Zhao

Arthur William Taylor
FMR Cooke QC

v

The Attorney-General
PT Rishworth QC and DJ Perkins

The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
PT Rishworth QC and DJ Perkins

The Electoral Commission
PT Rishworth QC and DJ Perkins


Civil Appeal

Judges

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Case Summary

Civil Appeal – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Grounds on which leave was granted

The approved question is whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed

Supreme Court leave application decision

HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, AND ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 183 [6 December 2017]

Court of Appeal decision

NGARONOA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZCA 351 [17 August 2017]

High Court decision

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 1706 [24 July 2015]