Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case summaries 2013

 

Case summaries 2013

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

 

As at 24 July 2015

 

Case Number

SC  149/2013

Case Name

Kerryn Mitchell v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence – Whether the sentence imposed of 2 years 1 month was manifestly unjust – Whether there has been a breach of natural justice rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27.

[2013] NZCA  583   CA 657/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 May 2014.

 

 

Case Number

SC  148/2013

Case Name

CA v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 14 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 14 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 authorises forcible entry by police – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in finding the evidence to be admissible.                                                         

[2013] NZCA 631  CA 455/2013

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 March 2014

 

Case Number

SC  147/2013

Case Name

NT v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 381A – Stay of prosecution in the District Court – Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision made pursuant to s 381A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that District Court Judge’s question was a question of law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making a finding on a question of fact, not law.

[2013] NZCA 589  CA 391/2013

Dates

Leave hearing
3 April 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 July 2014

 

Case Number

SC  146/2013

Case Name

Quentin Duane Pukeroa v The Queen

Summary Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Sentencing Act 2002, ss 23, 85 and 103 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge was not required to put to the jury a possible alternative basis of conviction for manslaughter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that taking into account the appellant’s other offending in fixing the minimum period of imprisonment for the murder did not infringe the prohibition on imposing a sentence cumulatively on an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

[2013] NZCA 305 CA 886/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

26 March 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  145/2013

Case Name

Roading and Asphalt Limited v South Waikato District Council

Summary

Civil Appeal – Tender methodology – Whether the respondent was in breach of a tender contract by awarding the solid waste disposal contract to a bid that was not the lowest price conforming tender – Whether the respondent was in breach of an implied obligation to treat tenderers fairly and equally, in not following the specific tender process set out in the tender contract, and in not treating the tenderers even-handedly.

[2013] NZCA 566  CA 398/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

10 March 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  144/2013

Case Name

Hao Zhang v The Minister of Immigration

Summary

Civil appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal was properly constituted – Whether the Immigration and Protection Tribunal failed to consider art 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in reaching its decision. 

[2013] NZCA 487   CA 296/2013, CA 466/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  143/2013

Case Name

LM v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 132 and 144A – Whether the offences in s 132 of the Crimes Act 1961 require physical contact with a child and a desire for sexual gratification – Whether New Zealand has the power to legislate against conduct beyond its own territory, in particular where the conduct is lawful in the place where it occurs – Whether or not the evidence justified the applicant’s convictions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s guilty plea - 

[2013] NZCA 145    CA 217/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal against conviction on the charge under s 144A of the Crimes Act 1961 is granted.  

The approved ground of appeal is whether s 144A criminalises offending as a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act.

The application to appeal against conviction on the charge under ss 131A and 145A of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 is dismissed.
20 February 2014.

Hearing

17 June 2014

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

Appeal dismissed.

13 August 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  142/2013

Case Name

John Morgan Mackenzie v Legal Services Commissioner

Summary

Civil Appeal – Legal Aid application – Whether Court of Appeal correctly dismissed the application for special leave to appeal to it from the High Court – Whether application satisfies s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to justify a direct appeal from the High Court. 

[2012] NZHC 3089  CIV 2012 485 1299

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 March 2013.

 

Case Number

SC  141/2013

Case Name

Firm PI 1 Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited and Body Corporate 398983

Summary

Civil Appeal – Insurance – Earthquake Commission Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the clause in the insurance policy providing that the respondent’s liability would be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the cover under the Earthquake Commission Act limited the respondent’s liability for natural disaster damage from a single event to the difference between the maximum cover under the Act and the sum insured.

[2013] NZCA 560  CA 3933/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

17 March 2014.

Hearing 3 July 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements.  We certify for two counsel.

15 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  140/2013

Case Name

Spinach Design Limited v Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and liquidation)

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether a liquidator can issue a statutory demand in relation to a debt owed to the company that is subject to a charge or in respect of which a receiver has been appointed by a secured creditor – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 254 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether Court of Appeal erroneously admitted affidavit evidence from respondent and placed too much weight on it in reaching its decision – Whether section 50 of the Property Law Act 2007 applied.

[2013] NZCA 546  CA 83/2013

Dates

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

The applicants, jointly and severally, must pay the respondent costs in the amount of $5,000 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

17 March 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  139/2013

Case Name

Gibbston Downs Wines Limited v Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and liquidation)

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether a liquidator can issue a statutory demand in relation to a debt owed to the company that is subject to a charge or in respect of which a receiver has been appointed by a secured creditor – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 254 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether Court of Appeal erroneously admitted affidavit evidence from respondent and placed too much weight on it in reaching its decision – Whether section 50 of the Property Law Act 2007 applied.

[2013] NZCA 546  CA 82/2013

Dates

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

The applicants, jointly and severally, must pay the respondent costs in the amount of $5,000 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

17 March 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  138/2013

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard  Heron and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Whether the decision of the Associate Judge was made in chambers or in open court – Whether the Associate Judge’s decision could be the subject of a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal – Whether any of the Judges in the Court of Appeal had a conflict of interest or apparent bias.

[2013] NZCA 599  CA 442/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.

4 April 2014.

Application for recall dismissed.

8 April 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  137/2013

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the Registrar of that Court not to dispense with security for costs.  

[2013] NZCA 540  CA 309/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,5000 to the respondent plus reasonable disbursements.
19 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  136/2013

Case Name

Stanley Williard Hamon v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating the law applicable to appeals brought on the basis of recanted evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the recantation was untrue and there should be no retrial.

[2013] NZCA 540  CA 183/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 April 2014

 

Case Number

SC  135/2013

Case Name

John Alfred Vogel v The Attorney-General and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, s 13 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make an award of damages in favour of the applicant following a breach of his rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 33(3)(g) of the Penal Institutions Act 1954.

[2013] NZCA 545  CA 171/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  134/2013

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to waive security for costs – Whether waiver of security for costs is in the interests of justice.

 

[2013] NZCA 586  CA 577/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  133/2013

Case Name

Stephen Ross Tebbs v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether or not the blood sample relied on by the police was taken in accordance with “normal medical procedure”

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 March 2014

[2013] NZCA 523  CA 160/2013

 

 

Case Number

SC  132/2013

Case Name

Mortgage Administration Services (Calibre) Limited v Calibre Financial Services Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first appellant was liable to indemnify the respondent for the GST sum payable on the mortgage advanced by the respondent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first appellant’s counterclaim could not succeed as the agreement underlying it had been terminated.

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The first applicant must pay the respondent costs in the amount of $2,500.
4 March 2014.

[2013] NZCA 503  CA 538/2012

 

 

Case Number

SC  131/2013

Case Name

Adrian James Leason, Peter Reginald Leo Murnane and Samuel Peter Frederick Land v The Attorney-General

Summary

Civil Appeal – Trespass – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation and application of the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by refusing to order a full trial in light of the assumed wrongful conduct given its obligations at international law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation or application of defence of another and/or necessity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to the interpretation and application of the law governing admissibility of additional evidence on appeal.

[2013] NZCA 509  CA 642/2011

Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

5 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  130/2013

Case Name

Larry Gordon Cant  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal acted improperly in dismissing all six grounds of the applicant’s appeal against conviction, including as to his self-representation at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence.

[2013] NZCA 513  CA 250/2010

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  129/2013

Case Name

Yandina Investments Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited, Westpac Banking Corporation and BNZ Investments Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Strike out application – Deeds of Assignment – Did the Court of Appeal correctly determine the subject matter being assigned under the Deeds – How should the principles for the interpretation of commercial contracts from Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 apply in proceedings where there is an alleged lack of information as to the background of entry into the contract as well as its context – Reconsideration of Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liquidation) [2006] NZSC 60 as to the application of substantial miscarriage of justice ground in s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to civil appeals. 

[2013] NZCA 469  CA 529/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.

 

Case Number

SC  128/2013

Case Name

Terry Jones  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no question of law to be decided – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the stay granted by the High Court.

[2013] NZCA 483  CA 826/2012

Dates

Leave hearing  7 April 2014

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

4 July 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  127/2013

Case Name

Patrick Dean Norris  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirements of s 220 were met – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow the applicant to adduce new evidence

[2013] NZCA 526  CA 59/2013

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

4 December 2013.

 

Case Number

SC  126/2013

Case Name

Wan Lee Chow v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 385; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 9, 24(g) and 25(a); Sentencing Act 2002, s 104 – Whether the trial was unfair because disclosed documents were not translated and no special measures were taken during the trial to accommodate the appellant’s intellectual difficulties – Whether the appellant’s sentence should have been discounted on the basis of intellectual impairment, age and hardship due to isolation resulting from communication difficulties – Whether intellectual impairment, age and hardship due to isolation resulting from communication difficulties should have led to a finding that the application of s 104 of the Sentencing Act was manifestly unjust – Whether the length of the sentence imposed amounted to disproportionately severe punishment in breach of s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

[2013] NZCA 360   CA 695/2011

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

28 March 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  125/2013

Case Name

Rujing Jin v North Shore District Court, Yasuki Konishi and Makiki Konishi

Summary

Civil Appeal – Practice and procedure – Proceedings – District Court Rules 2009 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’s decision to alter the mode of trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’s direction that there would be no judicial settlement conference – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to adjourn the claim against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision on costs.

[2013] NZCA 475   CA 168/2013

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,500  to the respondent

12 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  124/2013

Case Name

Harmon Lynn Wilfred, Carolyn Ruth Dare-Wilfred, Angela Maree Smalley, La Famia No 1 Limited, La Famua BNo 4 Limited v Kaiwan Gan and Juzhen Zu

Summary

Civil appeal – Interim order for immediate possession of property ­– Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for interim relief in circumstances where the application for interim relief effectively determined the outcome of the proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly determined that alleged breaches of head lease did not affect the balance of convenience – Whether appeal rights rendered nugatory by judicial conflict of interest.  

[2013] NZCA 457   CA 184/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.

18 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  123/2013

Case Name

Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.

[2013] NZCA 525   CA 147/2013 

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.

 

Case Number

SC  122/2013

Case Name

John F Jackson v IAG New Zealand Limited

Summary

Civil appeal – r 12.2 High Court Rules – s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 – summary judgement – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it was appropriate to make findings of dishonesty in the context of an application for summary judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was dishonest, and in reaching this conclusion, failed to consider relevant contextual and personal factors – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the liability for which indemnity was sought had arisen in connection with the applicant’s dishonest acts – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its view of the applicability of s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act.

[2013] NZCA 302  CA 274/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant  is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 February 2014.

 

Case Number

SC  121/2013

Case Name

CP Asset Management Limited  and others v Damien Grant and Steven Khov and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the resolution was contrary to the interests of unsecured creditors and that the resolution caused prejudice to the second respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creditors may not get an adequate investigation into the affairs of the company if the replacement liquidators were to continue in office – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the resolution and in its interpretation of s 245A of the Companies Act – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly quantify and assess the extent to which the terms of the first respondent’s position on funding was a specific benefit to the creditors in the liquidation and whether it misconstrued findings made a first instance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in basing its assessment as to the steps taken in the liquidation solely on the first report of the liquidators – Whether the Court of appeal erred by failing to recognise that related creditors have an interest in the liquidation and in giving primacy to the position of one creditor over the general body of creditors. 

[2013] NZCA 452   CA 67/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicants must pay to the First Respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

The applicants must pay to the Second Respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 February 2014

 

Case Number

SC  120/2013

Case Name University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Summary

Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard.

[2013}NZCA 471  CA 127/2013

Dates

 The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question:

Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)?

26 February 2014.

Hearing 11 November 2014
McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan,  Blanchard  JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result

  

Case Number

SC  119/2013

Case Name

Ross Dallimore v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Appeal against sentence – Undischarged bankrupt carrying on management of a business – Insolvency Act 2006, ss 149(1)(a) and 436(1)(b) – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given that the applicant was allegedly not involved in financial management of the business.

[2012] NZCA 437  CA 199/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 March 2014.

  

Case Number

SC  118/2013

Case Name

Jennings Roadfreight Limited (in liquidation) and Boris van Delden and Roy Horrocks as liquidators v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the trust created by s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 did not come to an end upon liquidation.

[2013] NZCA 455  CA 432/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground for appeal is whether:

(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or

(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.

14 February 2014
Hearing 10 June 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Result The appeal is allowed.  The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.

Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.


7 November 2014

  

Case Number

SC  117/2013

Case Name

Francis Thomas Dooley v Raymond Bruce Smith and Mohammed Shahadat

Summary

[2013] NZCA 428   CA 233/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the first respondent.

20 December 2013. 

  

Case Number

SC 116/2013

Case Name

MH   v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act s 30 – pre-trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act.

[2013] NZCA 432   CA 228/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed

10 December 2013

  

Case Number

SC 115/2013

Case Name

SLB   v The Queen

Summary

Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
13 November 2013.

[2013] NZCA 432   CA 295/2013

  

Case Number

SC 114/2013

Case Name

FMB   v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Pre-trial – Cultivation of Cannabis – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9 – Breach of implied licence by police officer – Trespass – Evidence of cultivation obtained in the course of illegal search of property –Admission of improperly obtained evidence under Crimes Act 1961, s 379AB – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that exclusion of the improperly obtained evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety given the moderately serious breach of applicant’s rights and seriousness of the offending – Whether Court of Appeal correctly took into account the maximum penalty for the offence rather than the likely penalty the applicant would receive in their assessment of whether the offending was serious – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admission of evidence is a substantial miscarriage of justice. 

[2013] NZCA 258   CA 66/2013

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

26  November 2014.

  

Case Number

SC 113/2013

Case Name

K   v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the evidence of the taped conversation was wrongly admitted at trial.

[2013] NZCA 430   CA 106/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 February 2014.

  

  

Case Number

SC 112/2013

Case Name

JLM   v The Queen

Summary

[2013] NZCA 432   CA 230/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed

10 December 2013

 

Case Number

SC 111/2013

Case Name

Daryl Kirsty Reid Balfour   v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. 

[2013] NZCA 429   CA 444/2012

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 110/2013

Case Name

David Neil Balfour  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. 

[2013] NZCA 429   CA 445/2012

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 109/2013

Case Name

Ngawati Heemi    v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 –  whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure of the trial judge to give a propensity direction to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the use of a question trail during the trial – whether the Court of Appeal applied the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act and, if so, whether it was correct to do so.

[2013] NZCA 426   CA 594/2012

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 December 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 108/2013

Case Name

Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as trustees of the Appleton Family Trust and John Appleton.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the issue of causation in particular  whether, if properly advised, the applicant would nevertheless have entered the transaction.

[2013] NZCA 420   CA 858/2011

Dates

 A. Leave to appeal is granted.

 B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.

C.             

 18 November 2013

Hearing 1  July 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Result A    The appeal is allowed.

B    The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).

C    The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated.  If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.

19 February 2015

 

Case Number

SC 107/2013

Case Name

Joan Mary Gilfedder   v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal– s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 –  whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure of the trial judge to give a propensity direction to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the use of a question trail during the trial – whether the Court of Appeal applied the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act and, if so, whether it was correct to do so.

[2013] NZCA 426   CA 547/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 December 2013

 

Case Number

SC 106/2013

Case Name

William  Victor George Conway  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 15(1)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence relied on by the Crown supported the conviction of the applicant on the counts alleging breach of enforcement orders – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the prior statement of the applicant where supplementary information was required to interpret correctly the content of the statement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively ruling that under s 15(1)(b) the Crown did not need to establish a real risk that the contaminant discharge onto the land might enter water – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the ruling of the trial Judge as to the verdicts which ought to have been accepted from the jury where the jury had returned verdicts of guilty on all the charges the applicant faced including the counts laid against him in the alternative

[2013] NZCA 438   CA 806/2009

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 105/2013

Case Name

Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.

[2013] NZCA 401  CA 28/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.

14 November 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 104/2013

Case Name

Mikhail Rafael Pandey-Johnson v The Queen

Summary

Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Crown had proved causation – Whether trial counsel erred in failing to challenge causation at trial – Whether evidence of Crown witness was admissible – Whether minimum non-parole period imposed was too high – Whether factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied. 

 [2012] NZCA 595    CA 515/2011

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

 2 December 2013

 

 

Case Number

SC 103/2013

Case Name

LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific  Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited

Summary Civil Appeal –  Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
 
 [2013] NZCA 386   CA 758/2012
Dates

 A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013.

Hearing 19 August 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

5 November 2014.

 

 

Case Number

SC 102/2013

Case Name

Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie  v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and Visiting Justice to Springhill Correctional Facility

Summary

 

Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2013] NZCA 422    CA 170/2013

Dates

27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013

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

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

29 May 2014.

Application for recall dismissed.

30 July 2014.

 

Case Number

SC 101/2013

Case Name

John Anthony Edwards v The District Court, Dunedin, The District Court, Oamaru, Waitaki District Council

Summary

Civil Appeal – Procedure – Was the Court of Appeal correct to treat the applicant’s appeal as being out of time and to hold that the grounds of appeal raised could not succeed.  

[2013] NZCA 382   CA 185/2013

Dates

A         The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

B          The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the Waitaki District Council

 15 November 2013

  

Case Number

SC 100/2013

Case Name

Darren George Hosking  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Fair trial – Whether the applicant was denied a fair trial because he was convicted on the basis of false allegations.

[2012] NZCA 460   CA 317/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 December 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 99/2013

Case Name

V v The Queen

Summary

Criminal – Appeal against Conviction – Appeal out of time – Historic offending – Representative counts of rape, sexual violation and indecent assault – Self-representation at Court of Appeal hearing resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice – Failure to make oral submissions at hearing – Difficulties with memory hindered ability to conduct appeal – Breach of s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[2012] NZCA 14  CA 107/2008

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Application for recall of judgement dismissed.

26 November 2013

 

Case Number

SC 98/2013

Case Name

PPT v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the propensity evidence is admissible.

[2013] NZCA 365  CA 276/2012, CA 426/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

15 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 97/2013

Case Name

Najeeb Dawood Dawood v the Queen

Summary

Criminal – Sentence – s 104 Crimes Act 1961 – whether a sentence of a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment was manifestly unjust in the circumstances.   

[2013] NZCA 381  CA 109/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 November 2013

 

Case Number

SC 96/2013

Case Name

Maka Tuikolovatu v the Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. 

[2013] NZCA 282  CA 527/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 95/2013

Case Name

Wiremu Kingi v Jillian Naera and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Maori land law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 3(a) of the Trust Order by finding that it empowered the trustees to enter into the Tikitere Project without reference to the owners of the land – Alternatively, if the interpretation of cl 3(a) given by the courts below is correct, whether it was within the power of the Maori Land Court to issue such a Trust Order under s 226(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. 

NZCA 353  CA 542/2011

Dates

A The application by Jillian Naera, Kereama Pene, Anaha Morehu, Warwick Morehu and Eric Hodge for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is declined.

B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted.  The questions for determination on the appeal are:

 

1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?

2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?

C No order for costs on the applications is made.

19 May 2014.

Hearing

18  November 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ

Result

A  The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment.

B  The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust).

C  The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment.

20 May 2015.

 

Case Number

SC 94/2013

Case Name

John Kenneth Slavich v The Attorney-General

Summary

Civil – Security for costs – Whether it is in the interests of justice to waive payment – Whether Court of Appeal correctly declined to review the Registrar’s decision to require security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that applicant’s appeals had no merit – Whether Court of Appeal Judge had a conflict of interest.

[2013] NZCA 356  CA 165/2013  CA 197/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.

26 November 2013.

The applications for an amendment of the judgment of 26 November 2013 and its recall are declined.

19 March 2014.

The application for recall is dismissed.

1 May 2014

 

Case Number

SC 93/2013

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Helen Diana Winkelmann

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether there is a right to apply under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 for review of a judgment reviewing a Registrar’s decision regarding security for costs

 CA 712/20122

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.

14 November 2013

 

Case Number

SC 92/2013

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha

Summary

[2013] NZCA 390   CA 166/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (as fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondents.

14 November 2013

 

Case Number

SC 91/2013

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General of New Zealand

Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal made material errors of fact and law in dismissing the applicant’s application to review the Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs.

[2013] NZCA 391   CA 319/2013

Dates

A The application is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondent.

14 November 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 90/2013

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha

Summary

[2013] NZCA 206   CA 362/2012

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements as fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the respondents.

14 November 2013.
 

 

Case Number

SC 89/2013

Case Name

Save Kapiti Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency

Summary

Civil – Resource Consent – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 171, 104 – whether the High Court erred in determining that permitted activities and unimplemented resource consents do not fall within the scope of “environment” for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) – whether the High Court correctly applied the tests set out in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate.

[2013] NZHC 2104     Civ 2013 485 724

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

14 November 2013

 

Case Number

SC 88/2013

Case Name

CT v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient consideration to ss 25(a) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in deciding that no miscarriage of justice had arisen because of delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the significance of the evidence unavailable to the defendant because of the time that had elapsed between the offending and the criminal proceedings.  

[2013] NZCA 383   CA 188/2013

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.  

9 December 2013

Hearing 8 April 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, , Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.

Result Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.

30 October 2014

 

Case Number

SC 87/2013

Case Name

John Douglas McKenzie v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Evidence Act ss 8, 12A and 27(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “statement” in s 27(1) of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply the “co-conspirator’s rule” under s 12A of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable.

[2013] NZHCA 378   CA 795/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is declined.

11 November 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 86/2013

Case Name

William Duffield McKee v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 8(2) – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not mean that persons who are legitimately able to be prescribed cannabis for medical purposes should be able to grow the plant for this purpose, given the absence of lawful retail suppliers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not allow a GreenCross card holder lawfully to supply another GreenCross card holder with cannabis grown for medicinal purposes – Constitutional challenge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the courts cannot overrule, repeal, revoke, amend or not apply provisions of the law which are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or which contravene cl 29 of theMagna Carta 1297 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not misdirect the jury – Entrapment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the undercover officer did not go further than creating an “unexceptional opportunity” for the applicant to offend.

[2013] NZHCA 387   CA 781/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

14 November 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 85/2013

Case Name

Mark Heteraka v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Identification evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 45(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act.

[2013] NZHCA 339   CA 592/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 November 2013. 

 

Case Number

SC 84/2013

Case Name

Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others

Summary Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.

[2013] NZHC 1992   CIV 2013 406 056
Dates

The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted.  The question of law for determination on the appeal is:

Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?

18 October 2013.

Hearing

19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

 

Result

The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

17 April 2014.

There is no order for costs.  Costs will lie where they fall.

19 November 2014.

 

Case Number

SC 83/2013

Case Name

The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust v Church Property Trustees and  Chief Executive Officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Trust law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the terms of the trust arising from the public subscription of funds for the erection of Christchurch Cathedral were irrelevant to determining the current obligations of the trustees or terms of the trust, and that the terms of the Cathedral Trust are to be found exclusively in the Provincial Ordinances authorising transfer of the land for the establishment of Christchurch Cathedral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the terms of the Cathedral Trust allow the trustees to decide to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral and do not require the trustees to maintain the existence of the Cathedral or repair it in order that it can continue to operate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first respondent was free to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral notwithstanding the terms of the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Act 2003 and its preceding legislation. 

[2013] NZCA 331   CA 57/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs to the first respondent $2,500.

2 December

 

Case Number

SC 82/2013

Case Name

Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others

Summary

Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. 

[2013] NZHC 1992   CIV 2013 406 056

Dates 1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted.  The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:

(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement?  This turns on:

(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “in the round” in considering conflicting policies.

(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment?  This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach.  Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.

18 October 2013
Hearing

19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Result

The appeal is allowed.

The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. 

Costs are reserved.

(a)    By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.

(b)    The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.

19 November 2014.

 

Case Number

SC 81/2013

Case Name

Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited

Summary

Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.

[2013] NZCA 91   CA 864/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.

24 October 2013.

Hearing 18 March 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result A    The appeals are allowed.  

B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.

C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  

D    Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.

18 February 2015

 

Case Number

SC 80/2013

Case Name

Fences and Kerbs Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd

Summary

Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.

[2013] NZCA 91   CA 773/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.

24 October 2013.

Hearing 18 March 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result A    The appeals are allowed.  

B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.

C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  

D    Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.

18 February 2015

 

Case Number

SC 79/2013

Case Name

Acme Engineering Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd

Summary

Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.

[2013] NZCA 91  CA 783/2012

Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

26 September 2013

 

Case Number

SC 78/2013

Case Name

Philip John Gash  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether or not the trial Judge erred in amending the indictment.

[2012] NZCA 309   CA 808/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

4 November 2013

 

Case Number

SC 77/2013

Case Name

Stephen John Lawler v The Queen

Summary

Criminal – appeal against sentence – appeal against conviction - whether the Court of Appeal erred in not calling for further reports regarding the applicant’s fitness to stand trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions and the sentence of preventive detention – whether the Court of Appeal rightly refused a recusal application.

[2012] NZCA 308   CA 777/2010; CA 655/2012; CA 656/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal declined.

3 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 76/2013

Case Name

Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand

Summary

Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.

[2012] NZCA 291   CA 811/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.

11 November 2013.

Hearing 10 March 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result A The appeal is allowed.

B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].

C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.

D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.

27 August 2014

 

Case Number

SC 75/2013

Case Name

Arcadia Homes Limited (in liquidation) v More To This Life Limited and Andrew George Clark as trustees of the Ultimate Lifestyle Trust.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Director’s approval clauses – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determinations relating to the effect of a director’s approval clause in an agreement for sale and purchase that has been signed, and the nature and scope of a director’s duties under such a clause.

[2012] NZCA 286   CA 149/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is refused.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.

11 November 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 74/2013

Case Name

C  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.

[2013] NZHC 1900    CRI 2012 009 11872

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 August 2013

 

Case Number

SC 73/2013

Case Name

Raeleen Rameka v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misstating the test in respect of withdrawal under s 66(1).

[2011] NZCA 75   CA 131/2010

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 

B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Rameka’s appeal.

14 November 2013.

Hearing 11 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
Result Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.

30 October 2014

 

Case Number

SC 72/2013

Case Name

Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the  Minister of Immigration

Summary

Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.

[2013] NZCA 276  CA 395/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are:

(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:

(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;

or (ii) apply the incorrect test.

(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?

3 October 2013.

Hearing 4 March 2014

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

Result

A The appeal is allowed.

B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.

C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.

D Costs are reserved.  Application may be made in writing if necessary.

26 March 2015

 

Case Number

SC 71/2013

Case Name

Michael Victor Bourneville and Mark Graham Blewden v Christine Jill Marshall

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in identifying the proceeding as an application to the High Court to remove a caveat – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not making reference to the rules of law concerning the ability of the Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion on appeal – Whether the initiation of proceedings to establish a constructive trust constituted an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had a reasonably based expectation of an interest in the property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying solely on a submission by counsel for the Respondent, rather than properly introduced evidence in the High Court or Court of Appeal, in finding that the first Applicant and the Respondent had accumulated substantial assets by their joint endeavours – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first Applicant “obviously would have had knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the expectation”.

[2013] NZCA 271  CA 676/2012

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.

14 November 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 70/2013

Case Name

Terence Mario Tere  The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. 

[2013] NZCA 282  CA 462/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 69/2013

Case Name

Christopher Jacob Junior Shadrock v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. 

[2013] NZCA 282  CA 496/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 68/2013

Case Name

Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No 1, National Standards Committee.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a lawyer could be proceeded against before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal or struck off for making a complaint against a Judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no legal or evidential threshold for referring matters to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that reasons need not be given for a decision by a Standards Committee to refer a matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in the disciplinary process –Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant a fair and impartial hearing.

[2013] NZCA 230  CA 554/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

 8 October 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 67/2013

Case Name

GPM v JHM

Summary

Civil – Relationship Property – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the lower court’s relationship property division – whether the Court of Appeal failed to appropriately accommodate the applicant’s disability – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify breaches of natural justice in the courts below – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the applicant’s application for recall. 

[2013] NZCA 166  CA 553/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 payable to the respondent.

27 August 2013.

Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.

 

Case Number

SC 66/2013

Case Name

Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement.                                                        

[2013] NZCA 221  CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011;  CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.

Dates

 Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds of appeal are:

(a)        In relation to the land use consent application:

(i)         Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;

Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and

What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.

(b)       In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:

The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or

The permitted baseline under s 104(2).

(c)        Whether the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.

2 December 2013

Result

Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

20 January 2015.

 

Case Number

SC 65/2013

Case Name

Harmon Lynn Wilfred, Carolyn Dare Wilfred Wilfred, Angela Marie Smalley, La Famia No 1 Limited, La Famia No 4 Limited v  Kaiwan Gan and Yuzhen Yu

Summary

Civil Appeal – Stay of proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to discharge a stay – Whether there has been a breach of the appellants’ right to due process to have its case heard on appeal – Whether the appellants have been deprived of their rights to natural justice and fairness.

[2013] NZCA 295  CA 184/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The application for a stay is dismissed.

The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

26 July 2013

 

Case Number

SC 64/2013

Case Name

Guo Wei Deng v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) – Criminal Practice and Procedure – Witness not called – Appeal against conviction – Whether allegedly inadequate interpretation assistance constituted a breach of the applicant’s right under s 24(g) of the NZBORA – Whether counsel’s failure to call two witnesses at the request of the applicant resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

[2009] NZCA 445  CA 780/2008

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

15 October 2013

 

Case Number

SC 63/2013

Case Name

Brett Stuart Wellm v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in length. 

[2009] NZCA 175  CA 581/2008

Dates

Notice of Abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

18 November 2013.

 

Case Number SC 59/60/61/62/ 2013
Case Name

Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The Queen

Michael Howard Reeves v The Queen

William Patrick Jeffries v The Queen

Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002. 

 

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal are allowed in relation to sentence but dismissed as to conviction.

B The approval question in relation to sentence is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in allowing the Solicitor General's appeals, and in particular, as to the necessity for sentence of imprisonment for the offending.

25 October 2013.

Hearing 11 February 2014.

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Result

A The appeals are allowed.

B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.

7 May 2014

Application for recall dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

22 July 2015.

 

 

Case Number SC 58/2013
Case Name

Zurich Australian Insurance Limited trading as Zurich New Zealand v Cognition Education Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the test for whether there is a dispute for the purposes of a stay application under Article 8 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 is whether there is an “arguable defence” and, as such, is the inverse of the test to apply for a summary judgment.
[2013] NZCA 180    CA 867/2012

Dates Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that there will be no dispute for the purposes of art 8(1) of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 unless the defendant has an arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff’s claim as is sufficient to resist an application for summary
Hearing

9 October 2013

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

Result Appeal allowed
19 December 2014.

 

Case Number SC 57/2013
Case Name

Aaron Patrick John Ellis v The Queen

Summary

Criminal – Crimes Act 1961, s 306 – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 338 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the High Court trial was in breach of the principles of natural justice. 

[2012] NZCA 185  CA 720/2011

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B   Leave is reserved to renew the application.

8 October 2013.

 

Case Number SC 56/2013
Case Name

Noel Lee Bland v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether applicant is entitled to a reduction in sentence where assistance is given to the authorities post-sentence and where this matter was not raised before the Court of Appeal.  

[2012] NZCA 165  CA 582/2011

Dates

 Application for leave to appeal is refused.

7 October 2013.

 

Case Number SC 55/2013
Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Review of a Registrar’s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address whether the Court of Appeal Registrar has power to refuse an application for filing a notice of appeal or review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Court of Appeal’s review powers under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 are expressly limited to orders made by a single Judge pursuant to s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).

[2013] NZCA 205   CA 422/2012

Dates

 A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent

14 October 2013.

 

Case Number SC 54/2013
Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others

Summary

Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review decision of the – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss an application to review that decision.

[2013] NZCA 204  

Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 October 2013.

 

Case Number SC 53/2013
Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no right of appeal against the High Court decision refusing an application for recall of an earlier judgment.

[2013] NZCA 202   CA 713/2012

Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 November 2013.

 

Case Number SC 52/2013
Case Name

Stuart Murray Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Summary

Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to hold that the High Court’s determination of the Chief Executive of the Department of Correction’s application for an extended supervision order was premature – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court did have a proper basis for making the extended supervision order.

[2013] NZCA 144   CA 482/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 August 2013.

 

Case Number SC 51/2013
Case Name

Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited  (in liquidation)

Summary

Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). 

[2013] NZHC 977   Civ 2012 404 3170

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.

24 October 2013.

Hearing 18 March 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result A    The appeals are allowed.  

B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.

C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  

D    Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.

18 February 2015

 

Case Number SC 50/2013
Case Name

Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages”  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.

[2013] NZCA 130  CA 834/2011

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares

11 October 2013

Hearing 20 March 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Result

A The appeal is allowed.  The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.

B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

 B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.

11 August 2014

 

Case Number SC 49/2013
Case Name

Siuake Lisiate v The Queen

Summary

Appeal against conviction – Inadequate directions by trial judge on s 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Expert witnesses – Breach of Code of Conduct for expert witnesses (Sch 4, High Court Rules) – Trial judge misdirected jury or gave inadequate directions as to the use of Crown expert evidence on the interpretation of text messages – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Unfair trial – Miscarriage of justice. 

[2013] NZCA 129  CA 31/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2013.

 

Case Number SC 48/2013
Case Name

The Attorney-General v  Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand Incorporated

Summary

Application for judicial review – Legal Services Act 2011.

[2013] NZCA 176  CA 606/2012

Dates

Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

21 June 2013.

 

 
Case Number SC 47/2013
Case Name

Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v The Attorney-General and others

Summary Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.
[2013] NZCA 131  CA 532/2012
Dates Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted?
25 July 2013.
Hearing 27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Result Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014.
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014.       

 

Case Number SC 46/2013
Case Name

Napier Tool & Die Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Intellectual Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in equating respondents’ effort in devising their product with level of protection available under copyright law for respondents’ copyright works – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for breach of copyright by divorcing the substantiality enquiry from enquiries into objective similarity and causation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remitting proceeding to High Court for enquiry into damages and should have directed determination of respondents’ loss based on quantum evidence led at trial.

[2013] NZCA 171  CA 271/2011

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

12 September 2013

 

Case Number SC 45/2013
Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others

Summary

Recall of judgments – Whether the High Court’s decision erred in regards to the law governing the recall of judgments – Whether the Court of Appeal’s delay in processing the applicant’s appeal constitutes a breach of natural justice warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

[2012] NZHC 2802   CIV 2012 404 4128

Dates

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C  Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 November 2013

 

 

Case Number SC 44/2013
Case Name

Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited

Summary Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid.

[2013] NZCA 101  CA 178/2013
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.

17 July 2013.

Hearing 13 February 2014.

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

Result A The appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored. 

B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 

C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.

5 September 2014

 

Case Number SC 43/2013
Case Name

Andrew John Caplen Beavis v Elizabeth Joy De Vere and Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment indicates bias against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment contain irrelevant statements or statements not supported by the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal had proper regard to the decision of the Family Court judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in departing from analysis provided by accountants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s business arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there were special circumstance justifying a departure order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that retrospective orders may be made under the Child Support Act 1991, and in making such an order – Whether the Court of Appeal otherwise erred in its interpretation of the Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have regard to certain relevant considerations and had regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal accepted that s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 was available, and erred in doing so – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

[2013] NZCA 124  CA 190/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 together with reasonable disbursement payable to the first respondent.
19 August 2013.

Application for recall dismissed.

20 September 2013

 

Case Number SC 42/2013
Case Name

Samson Duffy  v The Queen

Summary

Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a pre-trial decision of the District Court Judge to join the charges relating to the two complainants  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the jury verdicts in respect of the first complainant were reasonable on the basis of the evidence admitted.

[2013] NZCA 117  CA 516/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 June 2013.

 

Case Number SC 41/2013
Case Name

Bradley Matenga Kahui  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Parole Act 2002 – Whether the sentencing Judge erred in convicting and discharging the applicant instead of imposing a short sentence of imprisonment which would have ordinarily entitled him to credit for time served on remand.

[2013] NZCA 124 CA 190/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: was the sentence imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002?

14 May 2013.

Hearing Notice of abandonment being filed, the p\appeal is deemed to be dismissed
16 May 2013.

 

Case Number SC 40/2013
Case Name

MGY v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, in its pre-trial decision, had incorrectly widened the scope of ss 132, 134 and 2(1B) of the Crimes Act to include the conduct alleged against the applicant.

CRI 2011 044 3042

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is: 

Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable
in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?

2 July 2013.

Hearing 5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Result Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014

 

Case Number SC 39/2013
Case Name

Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)

Summary

Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages. 
[2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.

21 August 2013.

Hearing

12 November 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Result

The appeal is allowed.

The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.

The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.

The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed.  Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.

15 October 2014   

A  The application for recall is dismissed.

B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.

C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.

1 April 2015.

 

Case Number SC 38/2013
Case Name

Ifeanyi Jude Akulue  v The Queen

Summary

Pretrial ruling.

[2013] NZCA 84  CA 675/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:

Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?

8 May 2013

Hearing 14 August 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Result

Appeal dismissed.

19 September 2013.

 

Case Number SC 37/2013
Case Name

Brooks Homes Limited, My Refund Limited and Stephen Cavell Brooks v NZ Tax Refunds Limited

Summary

Interim injunction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where an appellate court disagrees with a lower court’s finding that there is no serious issue to be tried, the appellate court is then entitled and required to carry out its own assessment of the balance of convenience and the overall justice of the case.

[2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

21 June 2013.

 

Case Number SC 36/2013
Case Name

The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). 

[2013] NZCA 65  CA 282/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel.

15 May 2013

Hearing

26 June 2013

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

Result The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013

 

Case Number SC 35/2013
Case Name

Barry John Hart and others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Powers of the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to adjourn the appeal pending an appeal that was filed earlier in the High Court challenging the legal entitlement of the Official Assignee to liquidate the second, third and fourth applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Official Assignee’s argument that it had the function and powers to determine whether the appeal would be prosecuted by the bankrupt applicant
[2013] NZCA 94  CA 729/2012

Dates

 

 

Case Number SC 34/2013
Case Name

John Colman v The Attorney-General

Summary

Civil Appeal – Breaches of fair trial rights – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24–26 – Whether High Court correctly dismissed appeal against District Court decision striking out civil claims – Whether High Court correctly decided some claims constituted a collateral attack on criminal proceedings or were an abuse of process – Whether High Court correctly decided that some claims had no reasonable prospect of success. 

[2012 NZHC 1343   Civ 2011 488 723 , 724, 726,727

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2013.

Applications for recall are dismissed.
11 June 2013.

Further application for recall dismissed.
13 June 2013.

 

Case Number SC 33/2013
Case Name

Alesco New Zealand Limited and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Tax Administration Act 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s funding transactions were “tax avoidance arrangements” in terms of the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the respondent’s tax reassessments of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the respondent’s reassessments in respect of the applicant were not in excess of the respondent’s powers under the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant took an unacceptable tax position in terms of s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant liable for penalties under s 141D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent was entitled to costs.

[2013] NZCA 40  CA 53/2012

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  and other cases on tax avoidance:

(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;

(ii) the Commissioner’s application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;

(iii) the Commissioner’s reassessments were a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers.
9 July 2013.

Hearing Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

14 February 2014.

 

Case Number SC 32/2013
Case Name

Worthy Redeemed (aka Lee Errol James Silvester) v The Queen

Summary

Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit new evidence from Professor John Raine as it is alleged that the admission of this evidence might reasonably have resulted in different verdicts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the propensity evidence of Ryan Moore was admissible and that the trial Judge’s directions in relation to it were adequate.    

[2013] NZCA 61   CA 408/2011

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 June 2013.

 

Case Number SC 31/2013
Case Name

Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust Inc and Friends of Matapouri Inc v Chief Execuitve, Land Information New Zealand  and Attorney-General

Summary

Civil Appeal – Cadastral Survey Act 2002, s 52 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to judicially review the Surveyor-General’s refusal to exercise his power in s 52 of the Cadastral Survey Act to require correction of the cadastral survey data set – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to costs. 

[2013] NZCA 33   CA67/2011

Dates

Application for  leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013.

 

Case Number SC 30/2013
Case Name

Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore

Summary

Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.

[2013] NZCA 38   CA526/2012 

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made? 
16 May 2013

Hearing 30 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Result Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved

21 March 2014.

 

Case Number SC 29/2013
Case Name

Grace Riana Boagey v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Assault with a weapon; intentional damage; aggravated assault and refusal to permit a blood sample to be taken –¬ Disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence – Land Transport Act 1998, s 65 – Guilty plea following erroneous sentencing indication – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to quash guilty pleas and remit charges to District Court for appellant to replead and possibly a retrial.  

[2013] NZCA 30   CA202/2012 

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.

 

Case Number SC 28/2013
Case Name

James Patrick Gollan v The Queen

Summary

Appeal against conviction and sentence – Crimes Act, ss 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no basis that the applicant was acting in defence of his home or property under s 55 or s 56 of the Crimes Act – Whether the force used was reasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to not allow a police job sheet to be admitted by putting it to a person who was not the author of it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to exclude an article from the Police Association journal – Whether the applicant had adequate facilities and opportunities to prepare a defence – Whether District Court judges should be required to minute all decisions relating to rulings within a trial.

[2013] NZCA 29   CA580/2012 

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2013.

 

Case Number SC 27/2013
Case Name

Ewan Robert Carr and  Brookside Farm Trust Limited v Gallaway Cook Allan

Summary

Arbitration agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the legal test for severance, and in particular, whether essentiality is a factor or whether policy and part performance are the determining factors. 

[2013] NZCA 11   CA437/2012 

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is: 

Should the arbitral award have been set aside?

2 July 2013.

Hearing

28 November 2013.

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

Result

A   The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of 9 May 2011 is reinstated.

B   The respondent must pay to the appellants costs in this court of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. 

C   The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in that Court and the High Court to be fixed by those courts.

20 June 2014

 

Case Number SC 26/2013
Case Name

Barry John Hart v ANZ Bank Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – striking out of appeal against order adjudicating bankrupt.

[2013] NZCA 9   CA 858/2012 

[2013] NZCA 10  CA 858/2012 

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2500 together with all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

11 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 25/2013
Case Name

Simon McGrath v New Zealand Police

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood sample was taken lawfully and in accordance with normal medical procedures – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood test was not an unreasonable search and seizure.

[2013] NZCA 3  CA 375/2012  CA 463/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 May 2013.

 

Case Number SC 24/2013
Case Name

Susan Margaret Angelina Seager-Buckle v Eric Clyde Hurrell and Vivienne Mary Hurrell, Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Developmemt, Paul Maurice Buckle

Summary

Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correct to affirm Registrar’s decision not to waive security for costs ¬– Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) –– Whether the making of Court of Appeal decision on the papers was in breach of natural justice.

CA 673/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 June 2013

 

Case Number SC 23/2013
Case Name

Pauline Janice Harrison and Angela Janice Harrison v Auckland District Health Board and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Medical malpractice – Whether the Associate Judge had jurisdiction to strike out the claim or acted ultra vires in doing so – Whether the Associate Judge was correct to hold that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendants – Whether the Associate Judge was correct to hold that the statement of claim was vexatious and an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.

CA 723/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

15 October 2013.

 

Case Number SC 22/2013
Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) and s 61A(3) – Security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not reviewing the decision made by a single judge in that Court.

[2013] NZCA 5  CA 855/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.

 
 
Case Number SC 21/2013
Case Name

Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal.  

[2012] NZCA 604  CA 841/2011

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is: 

 Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?

15 April 2013.

Hearing

17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.

Result

The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.

The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013.
 
 
Case Number SC 20/2013
Case Name

Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.

[2012] NZCA 614  CA 402/2011

Dates

Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted.  The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013.

Hearing

7 November 2013

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

Results

A  The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B  The cross appeal is dismissed.
C  The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).

 
 
Case Number SC 19/2013
Case Name

BFSL 32007 Limited and others  v Peter David Steigrad

Summary

Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.

[2012] NZCA 604  CA 674/2011

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is: 

 Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?

15 April 2013

Hearing

17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.

Result

The appeal is allowed.

The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013.
 
 
Case Number SC 18/2013
Case Name

Max John Beckham v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[2012] NZCA 603  CA 608/2011

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground of appeal is:

Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

1 April 2014

Hearing

3 and 4 March 2015

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

Result

A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

7 July 2015

 
 
Case Number SC 17/2013
Case Name

Jacob Adriaan Britz v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 4(1) – whether the Court of Appeal was incorrect to apply the high threshold set out in SR v R [2011] NZCA 409 in circumstances where the applicant was seeking retrospectively to assert incompetence.

[2012] NZCA 606  CA 161/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 16/2013
Case Name

DMT v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 49 – Admissibility of convictions of a co-accused – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that where evidence of the convictions of a co-accused were admitted as circumstantial evidence the prejudicial effect of the evidence was likely to be less than the prejudice arising where that evidence conclusively proved an element of the offence. 

[2012] NZCA 605  CA 448/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 March 2013

 

ase Number SC 15/2013
Case Name

Independent Fisheries Limited and Clearwater Land Holdings Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery had exercised his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) for proper purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister’s exercise of powers under the Act did not infringe the principle that the executive should not deprive persons of access to the courts without explicit statutory authority. 

[2012] NZCA 601 CA 438/2012

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay by way of costs:
 (a) the sum of $4,000 to the first respondent; and
 (b) the sum of $4,000 to the second respondents –
 plus, in each case, reasonable

18 April 2013

 

Case Number SC 14/2013
Case Name

Robert Keith Jeffries v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Sexual violation, inducing an indecent act, indecent assault – Mild mental retardation – Jurisdiction of trial judge to decide the question of fitness to stand trial in circumstances where he has taken over the hearing from another judge – Failure to provide adequate accommodations at the beginning of, and during proceedings – Whether use of the dock in criminal trials is lawful – Substantial miscarriage of justice.   

[2012] NZCA 608  CA 742/2010

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 13/2013
Case Name

Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen

Summary

Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against sentence – Whether in light of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, which is expressly retrospective, prisoners with recognised intellectual disabilities who were sentenced prior to that Act entering into force are entitled to be resentenced and eligible for detention in intellectual disability care under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of that Act – Whether the appellant, as a prisoner with a recognised intellectual disability is entitled to the benefit of that law change and should, instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment, be detained in compulsory intellectual disability care – Whether the sentencing court and Court of Appeal failed to understand and consider the appellant’s intellectual disability

[2012] NZCA 581  CA 162/2011

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 12/2013
Case Name

B v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction for sexual violation by rape – evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge had applied s 44 of the Evidence Act correctly in excluding certain evidence relating to the  reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. 

[2012] NZCA 602  CA 862/2011

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) in light of ss 7 and 44 of the Evidence Act 2006, the Judge should have permitted the applicant to lead all (or some) of the proposed evidence; and
(ii) the apparent inconsistency of the jury’s verdicts warranted the allowing of the appeal.
18 April 2013

Hearing Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Result

 

Case Number SC 11/2013
Case Name

Wayne Leslie Douglas v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. 

[2012] NZCA 610  CA 623/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 10/2013
Case Name

Neal Medhurst Nicholls v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. 

[2012] NZCA 610  CA 624/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 9/2013
Case Name

John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal

Summary

Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection.   

[2012] NZCA 609  CA 650/2011

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013

Hearing

5 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping J J.

Result A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.

B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.

C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent.  They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014.

Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.

29 September 2014

 

Case Number SC 8/2013
Case Name

Philip Joseph Fava v Aral Property Holdings Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether a court is permitted to entertain an application when the party making the application is represented by a lawyer (or a firm including a lawyer) whose conduct is in issue in the proceedings in a manner contemplated by Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 13.5.3 – Whether a lawyer’s conduct will be in issue in proceedings for the purpose of r 13.5.3 where the case before the court protects or furthers the lawyer’s own interests.

[2012] NZCA 585  CA 500/2012

Dates

Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 May 2013.

 

Case Number SC 7/2013
Case Name

Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley

Summary

Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law.  

[2012] NZCA 576  CA 360/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 6/2013
Case Name

Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs

Summary

Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.

[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013

Hearing

5 and 6 August 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.

Result

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent.  We certify for two counsel.

6 December 2013

 

Case Number SC 5/2013
Case Name

Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council

Summary

Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.

[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013.

Hearing

27 June 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Decision Reserved.

 

Case Number SC 4/2013
Case Name

George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. 

[2012] NZCA 563  CA 635/2011

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 3/2013
Case Name

Taylor Jade Schmidt v Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Extension of time – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and/or law – Whether the Court of Appeal displayed pre-determination and bias – Whether the Court of Appeal acted on wrong principle – Whether the Court of Appeal took irrelevant matters into account – Whether the Court of Appeal was plainly wrong.

[2012] NZCA 565  CA 763/2011; CA 764/2011; CA 765/2011

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar.  The liability of the applicants is joint and several. 

12 April 2013

 

Case Number SC 2/2013
Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s refusal to dispense with security for costs on the basis that it relied on incorrect evidence, was based on the Judge’s predeterminations regarding the merits of the case, and unjustly restricts the applicant’s access to the court.

CA 362/2012

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2012.

Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013.

Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013.

 

Case Number SC 1/2013
Case Name

Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited  (in liquidation)

Summary

Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records.

 [2012] NZCA 553  CA 665/2011

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

21 March 2013.