Case information 2016
2019|2018| 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for 2016.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2019 - 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 3 December 2018
Case Number |
SC 10/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen |
|
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015 |
|
Result |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603). B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes. __________________ A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved. 22 September 2016 |
|
Transcript |
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
|
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 11/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others |
|
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608 CA 487/2014 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608). Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding? 11 April 2016 _____________ A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings. 26 October 2016 |
|
Transcript |
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ. |
|
Judgment appealed from |
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v MARWOOD & ORS [2015] NZCA 608 17 December 2015 |
|
Leave judgment - leave approved |
KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 36 11 April 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 139 26 October 2016 |
Case Number |
SC 12/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener) |
|
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained. |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628). B The issues are: (i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider; (ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and (ii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006. 15 March 2016 _____________ A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial. B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted. 29 March 2017 |
|
Hearing |
16 June 2016 Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment |
Case Number |
SC 14/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust |
|
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617 CA 379/2014 |
|
Results |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617). 16 June 2016 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 8 November 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ |
|
HC judgment |
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1481 27 June 2014 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 617 18 December 2015 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted |
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZSC 67 16 June 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 113 17 July 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 17/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Acorn Foundation Trust and Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Independent Group Trust |
|
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for requests by beneficiaries for access to trust documents – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for review of a trustee’s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision not to order disclosure of trust documents. |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622). 17 June 2016 ____________ A The appeal is dismissed. 8 March 2017 |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 1 September 2016 Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | IVAN VLADIMIR JOSEPH ERCEG v LYNETTE THERESE ERCEG AND DARRYL EDWARD GREGORY AS TRUSTEES OF ACORN FOUNDATION TRUST [2016] NZSC 69 17 June 2016 | |
Substantive judgment - Media release | ERCEG v ERCEG [2017] NZSC 28 8 March 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 23/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | C v The Queen | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury. [2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ). 14 July 2016 ____________________ 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 dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted. 19 June 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ not electronically available |
|
Leave judgment |
not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 24/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | AL v The Queen | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury. [2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ). 14 July 2016 ____________________ 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 dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted. 19 June 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available |
|
Leave judgment |
not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 27/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | JBG v The Queen | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury. [2016] NZCA 48 CA 160/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ). 14 July 2016 ____________________ 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 dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted. 19 June 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
[2016] NZCA 48 CA 160/2015 not available |
|
Leave judgment |
not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 28/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | JPC v The Queen | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury. [2016] NZCA 48 CA 145/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ). 14 July 2016 _____________________ 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 dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted. 19 June 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
[2016] NZCA 48 CA 145/2015 not available |
|
Leave judgment |
not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 32/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the applicant’s entitlement under the insurance policy issued by the respondent – Whether the applicant is entitled to relief from the parties’ settlement agreement under s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. [2016] NZCA 67 CA 400/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2016] NZCA 67). 20 June 2016 ____________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 10 and 11 October 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ. |
|
HC judgment |
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1444 24 June 2015 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZCA 67 14 March 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted | PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LTD v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 70 20 June 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release | PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 158 6 December 2016 |
Case Number |
SC 35/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002. [2016] NZCA 117 CA 129/2016 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133). ______________ A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved. 22 September 2016 |
|
Transcripts |
Hearing date : 6 July 2006 and Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
|
HC judgment |
Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 459 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 133 15 April 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted |
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 52 6 May 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media releasae |
Case Number |
SC 39/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman |
|
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74). (i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents. 26 May 2016 ___________ A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed. 26 May 2017 _________________ A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012). |
|
Transcript | Hearing date : 27 July 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted |
HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2016] NZSC 58 26 May 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 78 26 May 2017 |
|
Substantive judgment (as to interest) / Media release |
HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 129 [31 August 2017] |
Case Number |
SC 47/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Crocodile International PTE Limited v Lacoste | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 7(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 7(1)(a) Trade Marks Act 2002. [2016] NZCA 111 CA607/2014 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste [2016] NZCA 111). _____________ A The appeal is allowed. Registration of trade mark 70068 is revoked from 12 December 1999. |
|
Transcript |
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ. |
|
IPO NZ - Trade Marks Decision |
Lacoste v Crocodile International Pte Ltd [2014] NZIPOTM 11 19 February 2014 |
|
HC judgment |
LACOSTE v CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2349 25 September 2014 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2016] NZCA 111 11 April 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted |
CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED v LACOSTE [2016] NZSC 88 19 July 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2017] NZSC 14 21 February 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 48/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent’s appeal from the Employment Court was not barred for want of jurisdiction by reason of s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Court had wrongly applied or failed to apply orthodox principles of contractual interpretation. |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131) 13 July 2016 ___________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 17 October 2016 Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
|
Employment Court judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 57/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | David Charles Browne and David Browne Contractors Limited and David Browne Mechanical Limited v David Ross Petterson as liquidator of Polyethylene Pipe Systems Limited (in liquidation) | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to, and appreciation of, the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss 295(a), 299(1) and 299(3) of the Companies Act 1993. [2016] NZCA 189 CA291/2015 |
|
Result |
A The application for leave to appeal by Mr Browne is dismissed. ____________________ |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 10 November 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ. |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 60/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | B v Waitemata District Health Board | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondent’s smoke-free policy did not breach the applicant’s rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2016] NZCA 184 CA524/2013 |
|
Result |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184). 25 August 2016 _______________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted |
B (SC 60/2016) v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2016] NZSC 111 25 August 2016 |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 16 November 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ. |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
B (SC 60/2016) v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2017] NZSC 88 14 June 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 61/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | ASG v Harlene Hayne | |
Summary |
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter. [2016] NZCA 203 CA703/2014 |
|
Results |
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203) 18 August 2016 ___________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Employment Court decision | HARLENE HAYNE, VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO v ASG [2014] NZEmpC 208 11 November 2014 | |
Judgment appealed from | ASG v HARLENE HAYNE, VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2016] NZCA 203 16 May 2016 | |
Leave judgment - leave granted | ASG v HARLENE HAYNE, VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2016] NZSC 108 18 August 2016 | |
Transcript | 14 November 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ. To be re-scheduled due to earthquake disruption Hearing date 8 February 2017 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release | ASG v HARLENE HAYNE, VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO [2017] NZSC 59 3 May 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 68/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the limitation provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. [2016] NZCA 258 CA656/2015 |
|
Result |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258). 3 August 2016 ____________ A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside. 22 December 2016 |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from |
LEE V WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZCA 258 15 June 2016 |
|
Leave judgment | OLIVIA WAIYEE LEE v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 98 3 August 2016 | |
Transcript |
Hearing date : 19 October 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ |
|
Substantive judgment - Media release |
Case Number |
SC 73/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | K 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 | Judgment released. Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted. 16 August 2016 |
|
Judgments | Decision not available |
Case Number |
SC 84/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Green Growth No. 2 Limited v Queen Elizabeth The Second National Trust | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to rectification of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the covenant was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s notification of the covenant was not wrongful in terms of s 81 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. [2016] NZCA 308 CA47/2015 |
|
Result |
A The appeal is allowed to the extent only that the order for rectification is set aside. B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant. _______________________ A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed. |
|
Judgment appealed from | GREEN GROWTH NO. 2 LIMITED v QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND NATIONAL TRUST [2016] NZCA 308 5 July 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted | GREEN GROWTH NO. 2 LIMITED v QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND NATIONAL TRUST [2017] NZSC 127 [28 August 2017] | |
Transcript | Hearing date 13 February 2018 | |
Substantive judgment / Media release | GREEN GROWTH NO. 2 LIMITED v QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND NATIONAL TRUST [2018] NZSC 75 [17 August 2018] | |
Partial recall judgment - recall dismissed | GREEN GROWTH NO. 2 LIMITED v QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND NATIONAL TRUST [2018] NZSC 115 [26 November 2018] |
Case Number |
SC 89/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process. [2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338) 13 December 2016 _____________________________ A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 16 March 2017 |
|
HC judgment |
WALKER AND SCUTTER & ORS v FORBES & ORS [2015] NZHC 1730 28 July 2015 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2016] NZCA 338 19 July 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted |
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2016] NZSC 165 13 December 2016 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release | PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS v WALKER AND ORS [2017] NZSC 151 [6 October 2017] |
Case Number |
SC 92/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | G v The Queen | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that information obtained from a third party without a search warrant or production order is admissible as evidence in the applicant’s trial. [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016 |
|
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. 4 May 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from | [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016 |
Case Number |
SC 95/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Scott v Williams | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356). __________________________ A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below. F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel. 11 December 2017 |
|
Hearing |
14 and 15 March 2017 |
|
High Court judgment |
WILLIAMS v SCOTT [2014] NZHC 2547 [17 October 2014] (not available online) |
|
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment / Media release | ||
Interest judgment | SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2018] NZSC 37 [23 April 2018] |
Case Number |
SC 97/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board | |
Summary |
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted. 2 November 2016 _____________________ A The appeal is dismissed. ________________ A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 10 February 2017 _______________ Hearing date on recalll application : 23 November 2017
|
|
Employment Court decision | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted |
JANET ELSIE LOWE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release | JANET ELSIE LOWE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH [2017] NZSC 115 [7 August 2017] | |
Recall judgment | JANET ELSIE LOWE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH [2017] NZSC 191 [18 December 2017] |
Case Number |
SC 98/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015 |
|
Result |
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147). 2 November 2016 _________________________ A The appeal is allowed.B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal. D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements. 30 May 2017 |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted |
JANFERIE MAEVE ALMOND v BRUCE JAMES READ [2016] NZSC 145 2 November 2016 |
|
Transcript |
Date hearing : 5 December 2016 William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
JANFERIE MAEVE ALMOND v BRUCE JAMES READ [2017] NZSC 80 30 May 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 99/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Lakes International Golf Management Limited and The Lakes International Golf Course Limited v Hartley Clendon Vincent | |
Summary |
Civil Proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting a covenant. |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Vincent v Lakes International Golf Management Ltd [2016] NZCA 382). ____________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
reissued High Court judgment |
LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v VINCENT [2015] NZHC 2771 9 November 2015 |
|
Judgment appealed from |
VINCENT v LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LTD [2016] NZCA 382 9 August 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted |
LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v VINCENT [2016] NZSC 153 |
|
Transcription |
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release | LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v HARTLEY CLENDON VINCENT [2017] NZSC 99 29 June 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 106/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Minister of Conservation | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016 |
|
Result |
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411). 13 December 2016 _____________________ A The appeals are dismissed. |
|
HC judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Transcript |
Hearing dates : 27 and 28 Feb 2017 Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 107/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Minister of Conservation v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016 |
|
Result |
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411). 13 December 2016 __________________________ A The appeals are dismissed. |
|
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Transcript |
Hearing dates : 27 and 28 Feb 2017 Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 115/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Kawarau Village Holdings Limited and Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Limited (in receivership) v Ho Kok Sun, Peninsula Road Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Russell McVeagh | |
Summary |
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of a sale and purchase agreement – Whether there was breach of an essential obligation – Whether the purchasers were required to settle the agreement when called upon. NZCA 427 CA105/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (Sun and Ors v Peninsula Road Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2016] NZCA 427). 21 December 2016 _______________________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Transcript |
Elias CJ, William Young, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ |
|
High Court judgment | SUN & ORS v PENINSULA ROAD LTD (In R’ship and in Liq) [2015] NZHC 126 10 February 2015 | |
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 118/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2016) from CRI 2015-485-52, High Court at Christchurch | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the correct remedy was the quashing of the defendant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 417 CA663/2015 |
|
Results |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2016) [2016] NZCA 417). 19 December 2016 ______________ A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’s reference are set aside. |
|
High Court judgment | NEW ZEALAND POLICE v DENNIS MAX HAUNUI [2015] NZHC 2456 [7 October 2015] | |
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Transcript |
Hearing date : 28 March 2017
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ. |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release |
Case Number |
SC 121/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
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. [2016] NZCA 461 CA326/2016 |
|
Result |
Judgment released. 5 December 2016 |
|
Judgment appealed from | not publicly available | |
SC judgment | not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 123/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
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. [2016] NZCA 461 CA310/2016 |
|
Result |
Judgment released. 5 December 2016 |
|
Judgment appealed from | not publicly available | |
SC judgment | not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 124/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | C 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 | 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. 21 December 2016 -------------------------------------------------- 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. 26 September 2017 |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 29 March 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 131/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Affco New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Meat Workers and related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding concession by counsel – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant’s conduct defeated existing rights of employees – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act. [2016] NZCA 482 CA700/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc and Ors [2016] NZCA 482). 9 March 2017 ____________________ A The appeal is dismissed. 7 September 2017 |
|
Transcript |
Hearing dates : 20 and 21 June 2017 |
|
Employment Court decision |
NZ MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC v AFFCO NZ LTD [2015] NZEmpC 204 [18 November 2015] |
|
Judgment appealed from | AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED AND ORS [2016] NZCA 482 6 October 2016 |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted | AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED AND ORS [2017] NZSC 30 9 March 2017 | |
Substantive judgment / Media release | AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 135 [7 September 2017] |
Case Number |
SC 132/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
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. [2016] NZHC 2401 CRI 2016-087-000335 |
|
Result | Judgment released. Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted. 30 November 2016 |
|
Judgment appealed from | not publicly available | |
SC judgment | not publicly available |
Case Number |
SC 135/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name |
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners LP, and First New Zealand Capital, and Forsyth Barr Limited |
|
Summary |
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. |
|
Result |
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed. (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing. (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed. _________________________________ A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. |
|
Transcript |
Leave hearing date : 5 April 2017 |
|
High Court judgment | HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2014] NZHC 2229 [15 September 2014] | |
Judgment appealed from | HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS AND ORS [2016] NZCA 493 12 October 2016 | |
Leave judgment - leave granted | HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 | |
Substantive judgment / Media release | ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON v TIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS & ORS [2018] NZSC 74 [15 August 2018] | |
Costs Supreme Court | ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON v TIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS & ORS [2018] NZSC 112 [22 November 2018] |
Case Number |
SC 136/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Glenn Roderick Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections | |
Summary |
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, pt 1A – Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Parole Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the gravity of the offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the length of the extended supervision order was proportionate to the risk posed by the defendant. [2016] NZCA 504 CA119/2016 |
|
Result |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504). B The approved questions are: 8 June 2017 __________________ The appeal is dismissed |
|
Transcript | ||
Judgment appealed from | HOLLAND v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 504 | |
Leave judgment - leave granted | GLENN RODERICK HOLLAND v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 86 8 June 2017 |
|
Substantive judgment / Media release | GLENN RODERICK HOLLAND v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 161 27 October 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 138/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter and 168 Group Limited | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – s 44 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44. [2016] NZCA 514 CA720/2014 |
|
Result |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514). 2 March 2017 _________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 15 June 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from | POTTER v HORSFALL [2016] NZCA 514 25 October 2016 | |
Leave judgment - leave granted | MARK ALBERT HORSFALL v DIANA JANE POTTER [2017] NZSC 21 2 March 2017 |
Case Number |
SC 141/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | New Health New Zealand Incorporated v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Minister of Health | |
Summary |
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to the fluoridation of water supplies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding an appeal was moot – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Medicines Amendment Regulations 2015. |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13). __________________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Judgment appealed from | NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZCA 462 27 September 2016 | |
Leave judgment - leave granted | NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 13 20 February 2017 |
|
Leave to admit new evidence dismissed | NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 162 [30 October 2017] | |
Transcript | Hearing date 16 and 17 November 2017 | |
Substantive judgment / media release | New Health New Zealand Incorporated v South Taranaki District Council [2018] NZSC 59 [27 June 2017] | |
Substantive judgment / media release | New Health New Zealand Incorporated v South Taranaki District Council [2018] NZSC 60 [27 June 2017] | |
Cost judgment | NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZSC 70 [7 August 2018] |
Case Number |
SC 145/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited | |
Summary |
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age. [2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015 |
|
Result |
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93). 17 February 2017 _________________ A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored. |
|
Transcript |
Hearing date : 13 June 2017 |
|
Employment Court judgment | ||
Judgment appealed from | NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V BROWN [2016] NZCA 525 [4 November 2016] |
|
Leave judgment - leave granted | DAVID BROWN v NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED [2017] NZSC 12 17 February 2017 | |
Substantive judgment/ Media release | DAVID BROWN v NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED [2017] NZSC 139 [13 September 2017] |
Case Number |
SC 150/2016 |
|
---|---|---|
Case Name | Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors | |
Summary |
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents. |
|
Results |
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538). 10 April 2017 __________________ A The appeal is dismissed. |
|
Transcription |
Hearing date : 27 and 28 July 2017 |
|
Judgment appealed from | ||
Leave judgment - leave granted | ||
Substantive judgment / Media release |