Case information 2016

Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen 

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

 [2015] NZCA 603  CA 101/2015

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.
27 April 2016

__________________

A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed.  Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.                                              

22 September 2016       

Hearing date : 5 July 2016

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

BOOTH V R [2015] NZCA 603    16 December 2015

BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43   27 April 2016

EDWARD THOMAS BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 127   22 September 2016

Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others 

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:

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.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.

26 October 2016   

Hearing date: 17 June 2016

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v MARWOOD & ORS [2015] NZCA 608 17 December 2015

KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 36    11 April 2016

KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 139   26 October 2016

The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.

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

16 June 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ                                          

R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2016] NZSC 21 [15 March 2016]

R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017]

Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.

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.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.  
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017

Hearing date : 8 November 2016  

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ                     

WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1481    27 June 2014

WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 617   18 December 2015

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZSC 67   16 June 2016

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 113   17 July 2017

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

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.  
[2016] NZCA 7   CA217/2015

A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622).
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?

17 June 2016

____________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).  We certify for two counsel.

8 March 2017

Hearing date : 1 September 2016

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

ERCEG v ERCEG [2015] NZHC 594    27 March 2015

ERCEG v ERCEG [2016] NZCA 7    4 February 2016

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

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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                            

JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ not electronically available

not publicly available

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 

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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                       

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available

not publicly available

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

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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                            

 [2016] NZCA 48  CA 160/2015 not available

 not publicly available

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 

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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                            

[2016] NZCA 48  CA 145/2015 not available

not publicly available

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2016] NZCA 67).
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.

20 June 2016

____________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.                                  
6 December 2016

Hearing date : 10 and 11 October 2016                                                             

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.

PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1444    24 June 2015

PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZCA 67    14 March 2016

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).  
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?       
6 May 2016

______________

A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed.  Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.

22 September 2016

Hearing date : 6 July 2006 and
Hearing date : 26 July 2016

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

Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 459

MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 133          15 April 2016

MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 52         6 May 2016

EDWARD THOMAS BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 127    22 September 2016

Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman

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).          
[2016] NZCA 74   CA384/2015

A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:

(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.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.

26 May 2016

___________

A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.

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).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017

Fisk v McIntosh [2015] NZHC 1403   22 June 2015

MCINTOSH v FISK AND ANOR [2016] NZCA 74    16 March 2016

HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2016] NZSC 58      26 May 2016

HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 78  26 May 2017

HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 129 [31 August 2017]

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste [2016] NZCA 111).
B The approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court decision to set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks revoking trade mark 70068?

19 July 2016

_____________

A The appeal is allowed.  Registration of trade mark 70068 is revoked from 12 December 1999.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We certify for two counsel.
C Costs in the courts below should be set by those courts in the light of this judgment, if they are not able to be agreed.
21 February 2017

Hearing date : 30 August 2016

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

Lacoste v Crocodile International Pte Ltd [2014] NZIPOTM 11   19 February 2014

LACOSTE v CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2349  25 September 2014

CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2016] NZCA 111   11 April 2016

CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED v LACOSTE [2016] NZSC 88    19 July 2016

CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2017] NZSC 14  21 February 2017

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.                 
[2016] NZCA 131   CA570/2014

A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131)
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?

13 July 2016

___________________

A The appeal is dismissed.  
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017

Hearing date : 17 October 2016                                                                    

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

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 168  11 September 2014

AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2016] NZCA 131   15 April 2016

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 84     13 July 2016

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED[2017] NZSC 111  14 July 2017

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

A The application for leave to appeal by Mr Browne is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016

____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement).  We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017

Hearing date : 10 November 2016

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

DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DAVID CHARLES BROWNE [2015] NZHC 866  29 April 2015

PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LTD (IN LIQ) V BROWNE [2016] NZCA 189    10 May 2016

DAVID CHARLES BROWNE v DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZSC 107    16 August 2016

DAVID BROWNE CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND DAVID BROWNE MECHANICAL LIMITED v DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2017] NZSC 116   7 August 2017

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

A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184).
B Costs are reserved.                                                               

25 August 2016

_______________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017

B v Waitemata District Health Board [2013] NZHC 1702

B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184

B (SC 60/2016) v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2016] NZSC 111   25 August 2016

Hearing date : 16 November 2016

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

B (SC 60/2016) v WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2017] NZSC 88   14 June 2017

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011?  And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?

18 August 2016

___________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017

To be re-scheduled due to earthquake disruption

Hearing date 8 February 2017                                                                      
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

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

A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258).
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.

3 August 2016

____________

A The appeal is allowed.  The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant.  We certify for second counsel.
 C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.

22 December 2016

LEE V WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZCA 258    15 June 2016

Hearing date : 19 October 2016

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ

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 259   CA115/2016                   

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

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.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018

_______________________

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.
B There is no order for costs.  
26 November 2018

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?     

13 December 2016

_____________________________

A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017

Hearing date : 16 March 2017                                                                     
Elias CJ, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ     

WALKER AND SCUTTER & ORS v FORBES & ORS [2015] NZHC 1730    28 July 2015

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2016] NZCA 338  19 July 2016

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS v WALKER AND OTHERS [2016] NZSC 165  13 December 2016

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

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

A  Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B  The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016

__________________________

A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored.  The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.  If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.                                                                                 

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

14 and 15 March 2017                                                                     
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ

WILLIAMS v SCOTT [2014] NZHC 2547 [17 October 2014] (not available online)

Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356    29 July 2016

 SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149   9 November 2016

SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017]

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

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.

2 November 2016

_____________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B  There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017

________________

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.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017

Hearing date : 10 February 2017            

_______________

Hearing date on recalll application : 23 November 2017

JANET ELSIE LOWE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND CIEF EXECUTIVE, CAPITAL & COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2015]
NZEmpC 24 (2 March 2015)

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
CAPITAL & COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v JANET ELSIE LOWE [2016] NZCA
369  1 August 2016

JANET ELSIE LOWE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
[2016] NZSC 143   2 November 2016

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

A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.

2 November 2016

_________________________

30 May 2017

READ & ORS v ALMOND [2015] NZHC 2797 [11 November 2015]

ALMOND v READ AND ORS [2016] NZCA 147   21 April 2016

JANFERIE MAEVE ALMOND v BRUCE JAMES READ [2016] NZSC 145   2 November 2016

Date hearing : 5 December 2016                                

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

JANFERIE MAEVE ALMOND v BRUCE JAMES READ [2017] NZSC 80   30 May 2017

Civil Proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting a covenant.
[2016] NZCA 382   CA 699/2015

A Leave to appeal is granted (Vincent v Lakes International Golf Management Ltd [2016] NZCA 382).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016

____________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.  We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017

LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v VINCENT [2015] NZHC 2771 9 November 2015

VINCENT v LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LTD [2016] NZCA 382   9 August 2016 

LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v VINCENT [2016] NZSC 153
21 November 2016

Hearing date : 27 March 2017                                                                      

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7).             

[2016] NZCA 411   CA118/2016  

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).
B  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.

13 December 2016

_____________________

A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.  If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 Feb 2017

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

HAWKEʼS BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD
PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 106  6 July 2017

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7).                

[2016] NZCA 411   CA118/2016             

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).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.             

13 December 2016

__________________________

A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.  If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 Feb 2017

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

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (Sun and Ors v Peninsula Road Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2016] NZCA 427).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.                    

21 December 2016

_______________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017

Hearing : 6 and 7 April 2017

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

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

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2016) [2016] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.         

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.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One:  Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer:  No.
(b) Question Two:  If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’s conviction?
Answer:  Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017

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

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.       

5 December 2016

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

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. 

5 December 2016

Hearing date : 29 March 2017                                                                    
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

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 

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).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.

9 March 2017

____________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements.  We certify for two counsel.                                        

7 September 2017

Hearing dates : 20 and 21 June 2017                                                                      
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, McGrath and Arnold JJ                         

NZ MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC v AFFCO NZ LTD [2015] NZEmpC 204 [18 November 2015]

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

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.           
[2016] NZCA 493   CA578/2014

A  The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B  The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C  The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D  The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E  We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F  The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant:

(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.
G  In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H  Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable:

(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.
15 August 2018

_________________________________

A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018

Leave hearing date : 5 April 2017
Elias CJ, Arnold and O’Regan JJ

Hearing date 5 September 2017

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

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:
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.

8 June 2017

__________________

The appeal is dismissed                                                                  
27 October 2017

Hearing date : 3 October 2017

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

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

2 March 2017

_________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.  We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017 

Hearing date : 15 June 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.

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.                                                 
[2016] NZCA 462   CA159/2014

A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017

__________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.                           
27 June 2018                        
-------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                                                              A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.  Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018.                            
27 June 2018

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

A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.

17 February 2017

_________________

A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.  We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017

Hearing date : 13 June 2017
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

DAVID BROWN v NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED of Hong Kong (a wholly owned subsidiary of CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED of Hong Kong) NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 229 [15 December 2014]

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.
CA 736/2015    [2016] NZCA 538

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?

10 April 2017

__________________

A The appeal is dismissed.  
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017

Hearing date : 27 and 28 July 2017                                                   
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.