Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case information 2017

 

2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for 2017 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 2018 - 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.

Updated  7 June 2018          

Case Number

SC 10/2017

Case Name

Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.

2 May 2017

___________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017

Transcript

Hearing date : 8 August 2017

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

HC judgment ROOSE v DUTHIE [2015] NZHC 2035 27 August 2015
Judgment appealed from

ROOSE v DUTHIE [2016] NZCA 600 15 December 2016

Leave judgment - leave granted

DUTHIE AND TAYLOR-RUITERMAN v DENISE MICHELLE ROOSE [2017] NZSC 57 2 May 2017

Substantive judgment / Media release

CRAIG DUTHIE AND KIRSTEN TAYLOR-RUITERMAN v DENISE MICHELLE ROOSE [2017] NZSC 152 [6 October 2017]

 

 

Case Number

SC 11/2017

Case Name

F v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
[2016] NZCA 619   CA247/2016

Result Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                   
8 March 2017
HC judgment not available - suppression orders
Judgment appealed from

not available - suppression orders 

 

 

Case Number

SC 13/2017 

Case Name

Mark David Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Summary

Civil Appeal – Public Safety (Public Protections Orders) Act 2014, s 8 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the formulation of a threshold test for the granting of a public protection orders.  

Results

A Leave to appeal is granted (Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 620).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017

______________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August  2017             

Transcript

Hearing date : 22 June 2017                                                                      
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

HC judgment CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CHISNALL [2016] NZHC 796     26 April 2016
Judgment appealed from CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 620    19 December 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted CHISNALL v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 50  13 April 2017
Substantive judgment / Media release MARK DAVID CHISNALL v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 114   1 August 2017

 

 

Case Number

SC 22/2017

Case Name

R v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a retrial.

[2016] NZCA 341   CA634/2015 

Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

20 March 2017

Judgment appealed from

 suppression

Leave judgment

 suppression

 

 

Case Number

SC 23/2017

Case Name

Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017

_______________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved.  The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.                                                                       

23 November 2017                                                                                                                                 

Transcript

Hearing date 5 October 2017                                                                      
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

High Court judgment OSBORNE & OR v WORKSAFE NZ & OR [2015] NZHC 2991  27 November 2015
Judgment appealed from

OSBORNE & ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZCA 11  16 February 2017

Leave judgment - leave granted

OSBORNE AND ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZSC 90  19 June 2017

Substantive judgment / Media release ANNA ELIZABETH OSBORNE AND SONYA LYNNE ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZSC 175 [23 November 2017]

  

 

Case Number

SC 26/2017

Case Name

Wellington International Airport Limited v New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated and Director of Civil Aviation

Summary

Civil Appeal – Civil Aviation Rules, Part 139 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the term “practicable” in Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the matters that the Director of Civil Aviation may take into account.

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Ltd [2017] NZCA 27).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.

16 May 2017

________________________

A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  21 December 2017 

Transcript

Hearing date : 24 and 25 August 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Arnold JJ

High Court judgment                  NEW ZEALAND AIRLINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED v DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION [2016] NZHC 1528 6 July 2016
Judgment appealed from                                         

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED V DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION [2017] NZCA 27 28 February 2017

Leave judgment - leave granted

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND AIRLINE PILOTSʼ
ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 70  16 May 2017

Substantive judgment / Media release                               

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD v NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOC INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INC [2017] NZSC 199 [21 December 2017]

 

 

Case Number

SC 28/2017

Case Name

K v T

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

Result Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                   
19 June 2017
HC judgment K v T [2016] NZHC 251 [24 February 2016]
Judgment appealed from

T v K [2017] NZCA 25 [28 February 2017]

Leave judgment

suppression

 

 

Case Number

SC 30/2017

Case Name Director of Civil Aviation v New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated and Wellington International Airport Limited
Summary Civil Appeal – Civil Aviation Rules, Part 139 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the term “practicable” in Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the matters that the Director of Civil Aviation may take into account.
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Ltd [2017] NZCA 27).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.
16 May 2017

_________________

A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017

Transcript Hearing date : 24 and 25 August 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Arnold JJ
HC judgment NEW ZEALAND AIRLINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED v DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION [2016] NZHC 1528   6 July 2016
Judgment appealed from NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED V DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION [2017] NZCA 27   28 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave granted WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND AIRLINE PILOTSʼ
ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 70  16 May 2017
Substantive judgment / Media release WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD v NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOC INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INC [2017] NZSC 199 [21 December 2017]

 

 

Case Number

 SC 37/2017

Case Name

Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill City Council 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no duty of care was owed by the Invercargill City Council to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of limitation and contributory negligence principles

Result A Leave to appeal is granted (Invercargill City Council v Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.

30 May 2017

__________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored.  The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld.  Judgment is entered accordingly.  Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.                                                                                                      

14 December 2017

Transcript

Hearing date : 10 and 11 August 2017

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

HC judgment

SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1983   20 August 2015

Judgment appealed from INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL v SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST [2017] NZCA 68   21 March 2017

Leave judgment - leave granted SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL
[2017] NZSC 81    30 May 2017
Substantive judgment / Media release SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL
[2017] NZSC 190 [14 December 2017]

 

 

Case number

SC 38/2017

Case Name

R v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
[2017] NZCA 55   CA606/2016

Result Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.        

7 June 2017

Lower court judgment R v [S] DC Auckland CRI-2008-090-3508, 18 May 2010, not publicly available
Judgment appealed from [2017] NZCA 55 not publicly available

  

 

Case number

SC 45/2017

Case Name

H v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

[2017] NZCA 108   CA508/2016

Results

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                   
16 May 2017

Judgment appealed from not publicly available

 

 

Case number

SC 46/2017

Case Name

S v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
7 July 2017

Judgment appealed from not publicly available

 

 

Case number

SC 50/2017

Case Name

P v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

[2017] NZCA 106   CA66/2017

Result

Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                   
24 May 2017

HC judgment

(not available publicly)

Judgment appealed from (not available publicly)
SC judgment (not available publicly)

 

 

Case number

SC 52/2017

Case Name

T v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

[2017] NZCA 166   CA71/2017

Result Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                   
19 May 2017
High Court judgment (not available publicly)
Judgment appealed from (not available publicly)

 

 

Case number                              

SC 54/2017

Case Name

V v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the

result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

Results

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including

the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final

disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                             

7 July 2017

______________________

Substantive:

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.               
21 September 2017

Hearing date

Hearing date : 22 August 2017                                                                    
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

 
 

 

Case number

SC 57/2017

Case Name

Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia

Summary

Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence. 

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017

________________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.                                                                                        
21 December 2017

Transcription

Hearing date 17 August 2017 (leave application hearing)

Hearing date 11 October 2017 (substantive hearing)

Further hearing date 22 November 2017

High Court judgment RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU & ANOR [2015] NZHC 3347 [21 December 2015]
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release MAYTHEM KAMIL RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2017] NZSC 198 [21 December 2017]
 

 

 

Case number

SC 58/2017

Case Name

B v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted. 

[2017] NZCA 211   CA563/2016

Results

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
3 July 2017

High Court judgment (not publicly available)
Judgment appealed from (not publicly available)

 

 

Case number

SC 61/2017

Case Name

Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation

Summary

Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.

Result

Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.                                                                                

9 August 2017

________________________________

A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018

High Court judgment

Hartono v The Ministry for Primary Industries [2015] NZHC 3307

Judgment appealed from SAJO OYANG CORP v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZCA 182 [15 May 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted RUDI HARTONO AND OTHERS v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZSC 117    9 August 2017
Transcript Hearing date : 14 November 2017
Substantive judgment / Media release RUDI HARTONO AND OTHERS v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZSC 17 [2 March
2018]

   

 

Case number

SC 65/2017

Case Name

The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp

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.

Result

A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of  inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.                                                                                

30 August 2017 

High Court judgment TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 1706   24 July 2015
Judgment appealed from THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TAYLOR & ORS [2017] NZCA 215   26 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave granted ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2017] NZSC 131 [30 August 2017]
Transcript Hearing date : 6 and 7 March 2018

 

 

Case number

SC 70/2017 

Case Name

L v The Queen 

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.               

Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

High Court judgment (Not publicly available)
Judgment appealed from (not available publicly)

 

 

Case number

SC 74/2017 

Case Name

W v The Queen

Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.  

Result

not publicly available 

High Court judgment

not publicly available

Judgment appealed from W (CA378/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 235    6 June 2017

 

 

Case number

SC 78/2017 

Case Name Richard Frederick Eilenberg v Linda Alejandra Garcia Lourdes-Gutierrez
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a High Court decision to enforce a foreign judgment for child and spousal maintenance

Result

A The application for leave to appeal (Eilenberg v Lourdes Gutierrez [2017] NZCA 270) is granted in part.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Does pt 8 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 implicitly exclude the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce a judgment from Mexico?
(b) Would enforcement of the Mexican judgment be contrary to public policy?
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
26 September 2017 

High Court judgment EMAJOR v EMAJOR [2016] NZHC 2022 [16 August 2016]
Judgment appealed from RICHARD FREDERICK EILENBERG V LINDA ALEJANDRA GARCÍA LOURDES GUTIERREZ [2017] NZCA 270 [28 June 2017]
Hearing date civil appeal 15 February 2017_
Leave judgment - leave (partly) granted RICHARD FREDERICK EILENBERG v LINDA ALEJANDRA GARCIA LOURDES GUTIERREZ [2017] NZSC 144 [26 September 2017]

 

 

Case number

SC 79/2017 

Case Name Z v The Queen

 

 

Case number

SC 85/2017

Case Name E v The Queen
Summary

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. 

31 August 2017

Result

not publicly available 

High Court judgment not publicly available
Judgment appealed from not publicly available

 

 

Case number

SC 86/2017

Case Name Graham Thomas Rowe v The Queen
Summary

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

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Rowe v R [2017] NZCA 316).
B The approved question is whether Mr Rowe should have been convicted.
12 October 2017 

District Court judgment R v ROWE [2016] NZDC 3358 [26 January 2017]
Judgment appealed from ROWE v R [2017] NZCA 316 [25 July 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted GRAHAM THOMAS ROWE v R [2017] NZSC 157 [12 October 2017]
 
Transcript Criminal hearing date : 20 February 2018

 

 

Case number

SC 89/2017 

Case Name Sione (John) Uaine Moala v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the claimed failure of trial counsel and counsel in the Court of Appeal to pursue certain arguments amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

Result

Leave is granted for application for leave to appeal to be withdrawn without prejudice to the applicants entitlement to re-apply later.                                      

5 February 2018 

District Court judgment not publicly available
Judgment appealed from MOALA V R [2017] NZCA 212 [25 May 2017]

 

 

Case number

SC 91/2017

Case Name Chesterfields Preschools Limited (In Liq)  and Therese Anne Sisson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s decision putting Chesterfields Preschools Ltd into liquidation.              

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted on one ground only (Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 326).  
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs. 

_____________________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.                                                                     

23 November 2017                                                      

High Court judgment THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2015] NZHC 2667 [29 October 2015]
Judgment appealed from SISSON v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 326 [28 July 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 168 [16 November 2017]
Substantive judgment CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 176 [23 November 2017] 

 

 

Case number

SC 94/2017 

Case Name Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker v Wallace Douglas Hodder, Ann Adele Hodder and Kadd Farm Limited
Summary

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.

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 

High Court judgment HODDER v BAKER [2016] NZHC 2384 [6 October 2016]
Judgment appealed from BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZCA 355 [3 August 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZSC 171 [17 November 2017]
Transcription hearing date : 20 March 2018

 
 

Case number

SC 102/2017 

Case Name Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde and Arthury William Taylor v The Attorney-General of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and The Electoral Commission
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. 

Result

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of 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.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C  There is no costs award.
6 December 2017  

Transcript

Hearing date 26 March 2018

High Court judgment

WILLIAM TAYLOR & ors v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 355 [4 March 2016]

Judgment appealed from NGARONOA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZCA 351 [17 August 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, AND ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 183 [6 December 2017]

 

 

Case number

SC 103/2017 

Case Name Trends Publishing International Limited v Advicewise People Limited, Callaghan Innovation, Mediaworks Radio Limited, and Webstar a division of Blue Star Group (New Zealand) Limited
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. 

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd [2017] NZCA 365).
B 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.                                              
7 November 2017

Transcript

Hearing date : 22 February 2018

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LIMITED [2017] NZCA 365 [24 August 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LIMITED [2017] NZSC 167 [7 November 2017]

  

 

Case number

SC 106/2017

Case Name B v The Queen
Summary

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

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed      

1 December 2017 

High Court judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from Not publicly available

  

 

Case number

SC 125/2017 

Case Name A v B
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct appellate standard of review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court’s order permitting the applicant to access court records.  

Result

 

High Court judgment not publicly available
Judgment appealed from not publicly available

 

 

Case number

SC 126/2017 

Case Name B v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain propensity evidence was admissible. 

Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted. 

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

 

 

Case number

SC 129/2017 

Case Name T v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 8 and 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a pre-trial ruling that certain propensity evidence was not admissible. 

Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                                                                   

8 February 2018 

High Court judgment
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

 

 

Case number

SC 132/2017 

Case Name M v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a judge has power to grant leave to the prosecutor to withdraw charges under s 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prior to a determination being made in the course of a pre-trial hearing under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as to a defendant’s involvement in terms of s 13(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge had not made any determination under s 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. 

Result

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.                                                                                                    

7 February 2018 

High Court judgment
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted

   

 

Case number

SC 135/2017 

Case Name Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney General , Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust and Marutūāhu Rōpū Ltd
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to strike out the applicant’s claim for judicial review – Whether decisions made by the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations regarding land proposed to be applied to Treaty of Waitangi settlements are reviewable.   

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngᾱti Whᾱtua Ōrᾱkei Trust v Attorney General [2017] NZCA 554).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.                                                                 
23 March 2018 

Date of Hearing

14 and 15 May 2018

Elias CJ, William Young, O;Regan, Ellen France and Arnold JJ

High Court judgment NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 389 [9 March 2017]
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2017] NZCA 554 [4 December 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted