Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case information 2014

 

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

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for 2014 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 2017 - 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 11 September 2017          

 

Case Number

SC  124/2014

Case Name

Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration

Summary

Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.

[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014

Result A    The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B    The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C    The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.

3 June 2015

____________

A  The appeal is allowed.
B  The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved.  Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.

2 September 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 1 April 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ

____________

9 July 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and Blachard JJ

Judgment appealed from

GUO v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION CA236/2014 [2014] NZCA 513  24 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo granted

JIANYONG GUO, JIAXI GUO AND JIAMING GUO v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2015] NZSC 76   3 June 2015

Substantive judgment - Media release JIAXI GUO v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2015] NZSC 132    2 September 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  118/2014

Case Name

Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Avonside Holdings Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the insurance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that contingencies and professional fees could be taken into account in estimating the cost of rebuilding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take adequate account of the fact that the respondent had sold its red zone land to the Crown.

[2014] NZCA 483   CA 520/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted (Avonside Holdings Ltd v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2014] NZCA 483).

The question on which leave is granted is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the respondent was entitled under its insurance policy with the appellant to claim allowances for contingencies and for professional fees given that the respondent has elected to purchase a replacement property.

4 May 2015

_________________

A  The appeal is dismissed.
B  The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

22 July 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 25 June 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Judgment appealed from

AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED V SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED CA520/2013 [2014] NZCA 483  1 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015]  NZSC 49    4 May 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015]  NZSC 110   22 July 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  115/2014

Case Name

The Queen  v Shivneel Shahil Kumar

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety.                                                                

[2014] NZCA 489   CA 86/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014

______________________

The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015

Hearing

12 and 13 February 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

not available                                 _

Leave judgment - leave granted

NZLII

Substantive judgment / Media release

 R v SHIVNEEL SHAHIL KUMAR [2015] NZSC 124 [6 August 2015]

 

 
 

Case Number

SC  93/2014

Case Name

Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.     [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013

Result

Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.

31 October 2014

___________________

Appeal dismissed.

17 June 2015

Hearing

18 February 2015
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Judgment appealed from A (CA814/2013) v R CA814/2013 [2014] NZCA 385    12 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave granted A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157   31 October 2014
Substantive judgment / Media release TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83   17 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  92/2014

Case Name

Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.

[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013

Result A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA     400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.

 

30 October 2014

_________________

A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.

15 March 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 26 March 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

HOTCHIN V THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CA494/2013 [2014] NZCA 400    15 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave approved

MARK STEPHEN HOTCHIN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZSC 156    30 October 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release MARK STEPHEN HOTCHIN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2016] NZSC 24   15 March 2016

  

 

Case Number

SC  82/2014

Case Name Jonathan Dixon v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in amending the charge and entering a conviction on the amended charge – Whether amending the charge breached the applicant’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and take into account relevant submissions and evidence  – Whether the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider and take into account relevant submissions denied the applicant a proper opportunity of appeal under s 383 of the Crimes Act and resulted in a breach of the applicant’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding a miscarriage of justice.

[2014] NZCA 329 CA 518/2013 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014

___________________

A The appeal is dismissed.

B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed.  The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.

C  The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.

20 October 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 24 March 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

DIXON v R CA518/2013 [2014] NZCA 329 [17 July 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted

JONATHAN DIXON v R [2014] NZSC 151 [23 October 2014]

Substantive judgment / Media release

JONATHAN DIXON v R [2015] NZSC 147 [20 October 2015]

 


Case Number

SC  80/2014

Case Name The Queen v TWW
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.

[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).

The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a)    the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b)    evidence of it should be excluded.

10 October 2014

______________________

The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.

18 December 2015

Hearing

12 February 2015.   

Elias J, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

Wichman v R [2014] NZCA 339 not available_

Leave judgment

NZLII

Substantive judgment / Media release

 R v TAWERA WESLEY WICHMAN [2015] NZSC 198 [18 December 2015]
 

 

 

Case Number

SC  78/2014

Case Name LFDB    v SM
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the wrong standard of review on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the injury to the respondent and to the interests of the administration of justice more generally outweighed the injustice to the appellant in being debarred from further participation in the proceedings

[2014] NZCA 326  CA 864/2013 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.  
The Registrar is directed to set down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible during 2014.
25 September 2014

_______________

The application for a stay of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326) and for a further direction that copies of documents be provided to the appellant is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

20 November 2014

______________________

Leave to appeal is revoked.
Costs reserved.

5 December 2014

______________________

A  The appellant must pay costs of $52,245.63 and disbursements of $1,511.12 in respect of the appeal.
B  The appellant must also pay in addition to costs previously ordered, disbursements of $437.30 in respect of the stay application determined by the Court.

31 March 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 5 December 2014

Chief Justice, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Leave judgment - leave granted

LFDB v SM [2014] NZSC 131 [25 September 2014]

Judgment application for stay of CA judgment - dismissed

LFDB v SM [2014] NZSC 168 [20 November 2014]

Leave revoked

not available

5 December 2014

Costs in respect of the appeal

LFDB v SM [2015] NZSC 31 [31 March 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC  68/2014

Case Name Rhys Michael Cullen v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the actions and state of mind of an employee authorised by s 19 of the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004 to enter into transactions on behalf of a license holder are attributable to the licence holder – Whether the acts of an employee whose normal duties include assistance in dismantling cars are attributable to the employer as acts helping to dispose of property within the scope of s 246 of the Crimes Act 1961. 

[2014] NZCA 325 CA 769/2013.

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.

22 October 2014

__________________

Appeal dismissed.

29 May 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 10 March 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

CULLEN v R CA769/2013 [2014] NZCA 325 [14 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave approved

RHYS MICHAEL CULLEN v R [2014] NZSC 148 [22 October 2014]

Substantive judgment / Media release

CULLEN v R [2015] NZSC 73 [29 May 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC  61/2014

Case Name Todd Aaron Marteley v The Legal Services Commissioner
Summary

[2014] NZCA 185  CA 735/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Legal Services Commissioner v Marteley [2014] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are:

Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?

22 July 2014

_______________

A   The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B  In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C  The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.

21 August 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 5 May 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER v MARTELEY CA735/2013 [2014] NZCA 185 [19 May 2014]

Leave judgment - leave approved

TODD AARON MARTELEY v THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 94 [22 July 2014]

Substantive judgment / Media release TODD AARON MARTELEY v THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2015] NZSC 127 [21 August 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC  50/2014

Case Name

Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson

Summary

[2014] NZCA 117  CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated

5 August 2014

_________________________________

A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts

13 March 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 4 December 2014

Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold. O’Regan  JJ.

Judgment appealed from

THOMPSON V THOMPSON & ORS CA701/2013 & CA711/2013 [2014] NZCA 117  8 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted

CHRISTINE HAMILTON THOMPSON v MICHAEL LEITH THOMPSON [2014] NZSC 101   5 August 2014

Substantive judgment /Media release

CHRISTINE HAMILTON THOMPSON v MICHAEL LEITH THOMPSON [2015] NZSC 26   13 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  43/2014

Case Name West City Construction Limited v Henry David Levin and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of St George Developments Limited (in liquidation)
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no agreement to assign and/or equitable assignment of the bond monies – Whether the deed of assignment enabled the applicant to receive more towards the satisfaction of debt than it would receive or be likely to receive in the debtor’s liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the sum payable under s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.

[2014] NZCA 98   CA 101/2013

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Levin v West City Construction [2014] NZCA 98).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.

7 August 2014

_______________________________________

A    The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.  
B    The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.

15 December 2014

Transcript Hearing date : 17 November 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. 
Judgment appealed from LEVIN & ANOR v WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LTD CA326/2013 [2014] NZCA 98  27 March 2014
Leave judgment - leave granted WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v HENRY DAVID LEVIN AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS
LIQUIDATORS OF ST GEORGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 106
7 August 2014
Substantive judgment /Media release WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v HENRY DAVID LEVIN AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS
LIQUIDATORS OF ST GEORGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 183  15 December 2014

 

 

Case
Number

SC  42/2014

Case Name Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen
Summary

[2014] NZCA 83   CA 101/2013

Result

Leave to appeal is granted (Kohai v R [2014] NZCA 83).

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014

____________________________

Appeal dismissed.

16 April 2015

Hearing

22 October 2014.

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

KOHAI V R CA102/2013 [2014] NZCA 83   21 March 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted

ABRAHAM EPARAIMA KOHAI v R [2014] NZSC 91    16 July 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release ABRAHAM EPARAIMA KOHAI v R [2015] NZSC 36    16 April 2015

 

 top

Case Number

SC  41/2014

Case Name Tower Insurance Limited v Skyward Aviation 2008 Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the amount payable by TOWER if Skyward buys a replacement house is not subject to any limitation except that the amount must not be greater than the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that when buying a replacement house a customer is not obliged to choose a house of comparable size, construction, condition and style as its existing house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that once it has been established that the house is damaged beyond economic repair, it is for the customer, not TOWER, to decide whether to rebuild on site, or to rebuild elsewhere, or to buy a replacement house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that TOWER did not have the right to decide whether the house will be repaired, rebuilt or replaced pursuant to the express policy provision that “In all cases we have the option whether to make payment, rebuild, replace or repair your house”.
[2014] NZCA 76   CA 563/2013  CA 709/2013

Result

A The applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are granted (Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2014] NZCA 76).
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.

22 July 2014

________________________________

A    The appeal is dismissed.  We answer the questions posed as follows:

(a)    Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house.  There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.

(b)    Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i)    whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii)    if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.

B    We allow the cross-appeal.  Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.

C    In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

15 December 2014

Transcript

Hearing date : 5 November 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ

Judgment appealed from

SKYWARD AVIATION 2008 LIMITED V TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED CA563/2013 [2014] NZCA 76    20 March 2014

Leave judgment - leave approved

TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED v SKYWARD AVIATION 2008 LIMITED [2014] NZSC 93  22 July 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED v SKYWARD AVIATION 2008 LIMITED [2014] NZSC 185  15 December 2014

  

  top

Case Number

SC  28/2014

Case Name RJL v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 122(2)(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the District Court Judge was entitled to decline to give a warning under s 122(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’s ruling that the photograph evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the way the District Court Judge restricted the manner in which the applicant gave evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

[2013] NZCA 191  CA 707/2012

Result

A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014

_________________________________________________

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.

21 April 2015

Hearing

19 February 2015
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Judgment appealed from L (CA707/2012) v R CA [2013] NZCA 191  30 May 2013
Leave judgment - leave granted

L v R [2014] NZSC 107   8 August 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release NZLII: L v The Queen [2015] NZSC 42 (21 April 2015)

 

 

Case Number

SC  25/2014

Case Name

Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General

Summary

Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[2014] NZCA 19    CA 420/2013

_________________________________________

Appeal dismissed

23 December 2014

Results A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014.  The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014.  The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.

5 May 2014
____________________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.

23 December 2014

Transcript

Hearing date : 25 and 26 August 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Judgment appealed from

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL v DOTCOM CA420/2013 [2014] NZCA 19   19 February 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release

KIM DOTCOM v HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 199  23 December 2014

 

   top

 

Case Number

SC  9/2014

Case Name

DH  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to admit expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to the expert evidence was adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to evidence of no prior convictions was appropriate.

[2013] NZCA 670 CA 87/2012

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.

2 May 2014

_____________

Appeal dismissed.

16 April 2015

Hearing 22 October 2014.
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Judgment appealed from [2013] NZCA 670
Leave judgment - leave granted DH (SC9/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 50     2 May 2014
Substantive judgment / Media release DH (SC 9/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 35      16 April 2015

 

 top

Case Number

SC  8/2014

Case Name

Fowler Developments Limited v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a rational basis for the respondent, in making the September 2012 offer to purchase the applicant’s land, to differentiate between insured residential property owners and uninsured owners.

[2013] NZCA 588  CA571/2013

Result A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:

Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011?

Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:

(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?

(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?

5 May 2014

____________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.

13 March 2015

Hearing

29 – 31  July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Judgment appealed from THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY v FOWLER DEVELOPMENTS LTD CA571/2013 [2013] NZCA 588   3 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave approved in part

QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY [2014] NZSC 51   5 May 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release

QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY [2015] NZSC 27   13 March 2015

 

 top

Case Number

SC  5/2014

Case Name

Quake Outcasts v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Fowler Developments Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Government had lawfully established the residential red zone in Christchurch through the use of its common law or third source powers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creation of the residential red zone did not affect the legal rights and liberties of the affected residents such that recourse to the third source was available – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Government’s offers to purchase the properties of the applicants and the third respondent under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) could be implemented without compliance with the regime set out in the Act for a planned and co-ordinated earthquake recovery approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the different treatment of the applicants and third respondent was not in itself a reviewable error as there was a rational basis for differentiating between insured and uninsured land owners. 

[2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013

Result A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:

Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014

__________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.

13 March 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 29 – 31  July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Judgment appealed from

THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY v FOWLER DEVELOPMENTS LTD CA571/2013 [2013] NZCA 588 3 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave granted QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY [2014] NZSC 51   5 May 2014
Substantive judgment / Media release QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY [2015] NZSC 27     13 March 2015

  top

 

Case Number

SC  2/2014

Case Name

Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the evidence from the complainant’s mother was not expert evidence.

[2013] NZCA 593  CA 100/2013

Result The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014

__________

Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014

Transcript

Hearing date : 19 June 2014.

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ

Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted

PAKI HOAINI TAIATINI v R [2014] NZSC 2      25 March 2014

Substantive judgment /Media release PAKI HOANI TAIATINI v R [2014] NZSC 122    5 September 2014

 

 

top