Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case summaries 2014

 

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


As at 29 May 2017

 

Case Number

SC 141/2014

Case Name

Ngāti Wāhiao v Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāti Taeotu Me Ngāti Te Kahu O Ngāti Whakaue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996, Whether there was any credible basis for the Court of Appeal to find, if it did so find, that the arbitral tribunal misunderstood its task – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the leave requirements of cl 5 of the Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act.

[2014] NZCA 592 CA  592/2014

Result

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  We make no award of costs.

15 May 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 1 April 2015

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

Judgment appealed from

NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE v NGĀTI WĀHIAO CA592/2014 [2014] NZCA 592     4 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

NGĀTI WĀHIAO v NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE [2015] NZSC 67     15 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 140/2014

Case Name

Michael Christopher Cruickshank v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the state of the applicant’s knowledge of whether the medical certificate was accurate – Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine loss or abatement of entitlement in light of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, section 133(5) – Whether there was a sufficient evidential foundation for an award of reparation

[2014] NZCA 574 CA  367/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

31 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

CRUICKSHANK V R CA300/2014 [2014] NZCA 574    28 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER CRUICKSHANK v R [2015] NZSC 32   31 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 139/2014

Case Name

Jeremy James McGuire v The Ministry of Justice

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Notice of Abandonment issued by the Court of Appeal was wrong and a nullity – Whether the Court of Appeal’s Minute dated 31 July 2014 inviting the applicant to apply for an extension of time to appeal was wrong on the facts and in law.

[2014] NZCA 556  CA  314/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

10 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

MCGUIRE V THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CA314/2013 [2014] NZCA 556 [19 November 2013]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

JEREMY JAMES McGUIRE v THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2015] NZSC 24  10 March 2015

 

 

 

Case Number

SC 138/2014

Case Name

New Zealand Cards Limited v Colin Ramsay

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal considered all of the issues on which leave was granted – Whether there was unfairness or lawyer misconduct in the process leading to the Court of Appeal judgment – The proper approach to constructive dismissal – Whether on the facts of this case there has been a dismissal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred.

[2014] NZCA 512  CA  424/2012

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

22 April 2015

Judgment appealed from

N Z CARDS LIMITED v RAMSAY CA424/2012 [2014] NZCA 512  23 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

NEW ZEALAND CARDS LIMITED v COLIN RAMSAY [2015] NZSC 45  22 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 137/2014

Case Name

Allen Louis Harriman v Attorney-General and New Zealand Parole Board

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether there are a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

[2014] NZCA 544  CA  463/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
No order for costs.

14 April 2015

Judgment appealed from

HARRIMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA463/2013 [2014] NZCA 544   12 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ALLEN LOUIS HARRIMAN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZSC 37   14 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 136/2014

Case Name

Wendy Maree Whitehead v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 229A(b) and 228(b); and Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether insufficient direction was given to the jury as to what constituted a de facto relationship – Whether loss of entitlement ought to have been determined  before the criminal trial.

[2014] NZCA 573  CA  300/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

30 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

WHITEHEAD V R CA367/2014 [2014] NZCA 573    28 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

WENDY MAREE WHITEHEAD v R [2015] NZSC 29   30 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 135/2014

Case Name

Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal not to dispense with or vary payment of security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 569  CA  456/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.

18 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY CA456/2014 [2014] NZCA 569  27 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

EVGENY ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2015] NZSC 8   18 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 134/2014

Case Name

John Douglas Tamati Te Hoko-Whitu-Atu Hauraki as trustee of the Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts  v Richard Tatere

Summary

Civil Appeal – Maori land – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the trustees’ children as if they were income beneficiaries when there was irrefutable evidence that eight of the nine children had ceased to be and were not income beneficiaries for the purposes of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the only condition of the consents of both sets of beneficiaries, that due and proper consideration be given to the claims relating to “tipuna whenua”, “whakapapa” and “taonga tuku iho” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to consider whakapapa which it had provisionally allowed to be adduced.

[2014] NZCA 532  CA  451/2013

Result

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

20 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

THE TE AUTE TRUST BOARD v HAURAKI CA451/2013 [2014] NZCA 532   4 November 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC 133/2014

Case Name

Dennis Joseph Gardiner and Hutia Monica Gardiner v Westpac New Zealand Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the mortgagee sale was substantially below the statutory and common law criteria of best price – Whether the sale was arguably unlawful being made to Westpac’s real estate agent’s licensed salesperson responsible for selling the property – Whether the proceeds of the two mortgagee sales arguably fully repaid the loan but guarantee quantum issues were not summarily determined nor capable of being properly determined on appeal.  
[2014] NZCA 537  CA  264/2013

Result A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 together with disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).

 

9 March 2015

Judgment appealed from GARDINER v WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA263/2013 [2014] NZCA 537  7 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed DENNIS JOSEPH GARDINER AND HUTIA MONICA GARDINER v WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED [2015] NZSC 20   9 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 132/2014

Case Name

Philippa Currie, Raymond Donnelly & Co, The Crown Solicitor at Christchurch, The Attoney-General of New Zealand  and others v Vincent James Clayton and Linda Joyce Westbury

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an accused may be entitled to damages for misfeasance in public office where disclosure by a prosecutor is deliberately misleading – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the prosecutor’s disclosure of the District Court’s sentencing indication had a “requisite public character” and that it was an exercise of a “power or authority”.

[2014] NZCA 511  CA  341/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondents reasonable disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).

5 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

CURRIE V CLAYTON CA341/2013 [2014] NZCA 511  5 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PHILIPPA CURRIE, RAYMOND DONNELLY & CO, THE CROWN SOLICITOR AT CHRISTCHURCH AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v VINCENT JAMES CLAYTON AND LINDA JOYCE WESTBURY [2015] NZSC 17   5 March 2015

 

Case Number

SC 131/2014

Case Name

 M  v The Queen

Summary

Pre-trial ruling

[2014] NZCA 576  CA  601/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

11 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

[2014] NZCA 576 -not available online

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

not available online

 

 

Case Number

SC  130/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O’Brien and Attorney-General 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in granting the Attorney­-General standing to be heard where the proceedings had previously been stayed against the Attorney-General.  


[2014] NZHC 2886  CIV 2013 485 5611
Result A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.

 

25 February 2015

___________

Application for recall dismissed.
10 March 2015

___________

Second application for recall dismissed.

5 June 2015

_____________

Judgment reissued.

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.
5 June 2015

______________

Third application for recall dismissed.

23 June 2015

Judgment appealed from

SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2014] NZHC 2886  20 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v CLARE O'BRIEN [2015] NZSC 13    25 February 2015

Recall judgment - recall dismissed VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v CLARE O'BRIEN [2015] NZSC 23   10 March 2015
Reissued leave judgment VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v CLARE O'BRIEN [2015] NZSC 79  reissued 5 June 2015
2nd recall judgment - recall dismissed VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v CLARE O'BRIEN [2015] NZSC 78   5 June 2015
3rd recall judgment - recall dismissed VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v CLARE O'BRIEN [2015] NZSC 89   23 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  129/2014

Case Name

Issac John Chadderton v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Birchler v Police [2010] NZSC 109, [2011] 1 NZLR 169 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Birchler v Police – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the two detentions were lawful.

[2014] NZCA 528  CA  40/2014

Result

The application for deferral of the operation of the disqualification order is dismissed.

8 December 2014

______________

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

31 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

CHADDERTON v R CA40/2014 [2014] NZCA 528   31 October 2014

Application for deferral  - order dismissed

ISSAC JOHN CHADDERTON v R [2014] NZSC 180   8 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ISSAC JOHN CHADDERTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZSC 30  31 March 2015

 

Case Number

SC  128/2014

Case Name

Ian Russell Geary v Accident Compensation Corporation

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal fulfilled the role of an appeal court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Rules endorse the practice of a Judge hearing an application for leave to appeal against his or her own decision.

[2014] NZCA 534  CA  472/2014

Result A   The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B   The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 together with disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).

 

23 February 2015

Judgment appealed from GEARY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA472/2014 [2014] NZCA 534  5 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed IAN RUSSELL GEARY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZSC 12
23 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  127/2014

Case Name

Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated and Kristine Bartlett

Summary

Civil Appeal – Equal Pay Act 1972 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1972. 

[2014] NZCA 516  CA  631/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

No order as to costs.

22 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

TERRANOVA HOMES & CARE LTD v SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC CA631/2013 [2014] NZCA 516   28 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

TERRANOVA HOMES AND CARE LIMITED v SERVICE AND FOODWORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 196    22 December 2014

 

Case Number

SC  126/2014

Case Name

Robert Clifford Hoani Cribb v Evia Rural Finance Limited and The Official Assignee

Summary Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision had a sound factual basis – Whether the Court of Appeal decision failed to consider the appellant’s argument – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit the further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant to be insolvent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in supporting the exercise of the discretion by the Associate Judge.

[2014] NZCA 543   CA  179/2012
Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

18 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

CRIBB v EVIA RURAL FINANCE LTD CA179/2012 [2014] NZCA 543   11 November 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ROBERT CLIFFORD HOANI CRIBB v EVIA RURAL FINANCE LIMITED [2015]  NZSC 5
18 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  125/2014

Case Name

NR  v M and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether there were a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s hearing and judgment

[2014] NZCA 526   CA 144/2014

Result

The application to file further submissions is declined.

The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.

19 December 2014

______________

A  The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B  The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014). 
E  Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.

 

27 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

NR V M CA144/2014 [2014] NZCA 526    30 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave

 N v M [2014] NZSC 189   19 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  124/2014

Case Name

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

Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014

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


3 June 2015

____________

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

2 September 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 1 April 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ

____________

9 July 2015

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo granted

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

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  123/2014

Case Name

MTR v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.

[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed,

11 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

[2014] NZCA 520 not available online

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 not available online

 

 

Case Number

SC  122/2014

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 519

Result

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

28 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

RAZDAN RAFIQ V THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND CA552/2014 [2014] NZCA 519      29 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  121/2014

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v The Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Commissioner of Police, the Attorney-General of New Zealand

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a stay of proceedings

[2014] NZCA 518

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

20 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ V THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND CA445/2014 [2014] NZCA 518    29 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2015] NZSC 10     20 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  120/2014

Case Name

NR v District Court at Auckland and MR

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to provide the applicant with information he requested.

[2014] NZCA 514

Result The application to file further submissions is declined.
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.

 

19 December 2014

_____________

A  The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B  The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C  The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D  Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014). 
E   Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.

27 February 2015

Judgment appealed from NR V DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA461/2014 [2014] NZCA 514   28 October 2014
Leave and recall judgment - leave and recall dismissed N v M [2015] NZSC 15    27 February 2015

 

 

 

Case Number

SC  119/2014

Case Name

Patrick Dean Norris v Bruce Donald Gemmell and Rhys James Cain

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 255 and 283 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the requirements of s 255(2)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misdirecting themselves on the statutory purpose and the natural wording of s 283(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that liquidators appointed pursuant to s 283 are not required to advise the Registrar of their appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a liquidator’s statutory ability to act as liquidator does not commence immediately on appointment as has been long held in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that pursuant to s 283(2) if the person who wishes to resign is not currently the liquidator there can be no resignation and no new appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in  deciding that there was a vacancy when Messrs Gemmell and Cain were appointed by the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Official Assignee was able to arbitrarily remove and replace a statutorily appointed and properly acting liquidator – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Mr Churchill was never validly appointed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing leave to adduce certain new evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to costs.

[2014] NZCA 490   CA 857/2012

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

19 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

NORRIS v GEMMELL CA857/2012 [2014] NZCA 490   6 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PATRICK DEAN NORRIS v BRUCE DONALD GEMMELL AND RHYS JAMES CAIN [2014] NZSC 190    19 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  118/2014

Case Name

Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Avonside Holdings Limited

Summary

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


[2014] NZCA 483   CA 520/2013

Result

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

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

4 May 2015

_________________

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

22 July 2015

Hearing

25 June 2015

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

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment / Media release

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  117/2014

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v Department of Internal Affairs

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 501  CA 496/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

20 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ V DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS CA496/2014 [2014] NZCA 501    14 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2015] NZSC 10   20 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  116/2014

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 492    CA 249/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

16 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ v THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA249/2014 [2014] NZCA 492   7 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZSC 4   16 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  115/2014

Case Name

The Queen  v Shivneel Shahil Kumar

Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 489   CA 86/2014

Result

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

Hearing

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

Judgment appealed from

not available                                 _

Leave judgment - leave granted

NZLII

 

Case Number

SC  114/2014

Case Name

Medhi Jaffari and Tracy Jaffari v Livia Grabowski

Summary

Civil Appeal – Reciprocal Enforcements of Judgments Act 1934, s 6(d); Svirkis v Gibson [1977] 2 NZLR 4 (CA); and Syal v Howard [1948] 2 KB 443 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to afford the appellants natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give the appellants leave to adduce additional evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly consider relevant matters – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly apply the law set out in Svirkis v Gibson and Syal v Howard – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by incorrectly stating and unfairly discounting the appellant’s evidence.

[2014] NZCA 399    CA 52/2014

Result The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.


11 February 2015

Judgment appealed from JAFFARI V GRABOWSKI CA52/2014 [2014] NZCA 399   15 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed MEHDI JAFFARI AND TRACY JAFFARI v LIVIA GRABOWSKI [2015] NZSC 2  11 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  113/2014

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 500    CA 495/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

10 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

RAZDAN RAFIQ V COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA495/2014 [2014] NZCA 500   14 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZSC 181    10 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  112/2014

Case Name

Jacobus van der Lubbe v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider relevant evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider a number of other issues raised.

[2014] NZCA 495    CA 305/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

17 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

 VAN DER LUBBE v R CA305/2013 [2014] NZCA 495     8 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 JACOBUS VAN DER LUBBE v R [2014] NZSC 187    17 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  111/2014

Case Name

Peter Guy Goodricke v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the procedure on appeal complied with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

CRI  2010-485-26

Result

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

5 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  110/2014

Case Name

Daniel Thomas Spencer Riddiford and Yvonne Ada Riddiford v The Attorney-General

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil Rules) 2005, r 54 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking its discretion under r 54 and elsewhere to award compound interest – Whether this was a case where full compensation based on actual interest cost should have been paid – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong not to apply case law known as the “English Rules”.

[2012] NZCA 112;    [2014] NZCA 435   CA 48/2010

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 .

22 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

RIDDIFORD v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA48/2010 [2014] NZCA 435  4 September 2014

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL COA CA48/2010 28 March 2012

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 195         23 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  109/2014

Case Name

Arthur Sylvan Morgenstern and Tanya May Lavas v Stephanie Beth Jeffreys and Timothy Wilson Downes

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 131, 135, 137, 138 and 301 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim for breach of ss 131 (duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company), 135 (duty not to agree to, cause or allow reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care), in relation to selling an asset (shares) to the company at an alleged undervalue, the onus is on the director to prove that the asset was transferred for fair value – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a director facing claims under ss 131, 135 and 137, who relied on professional advice, is required by s 138 to plead this as an affirmative defence and bears the onus of proof – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim under s 301, the onus is on the director to prove that the breach caused no loss to the company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in fixing the amount to be paid or contributed under s 301, by proceeding on a restitutionary basis and failing to take into account the actual loss caused to creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an inference could be drawn against the first appellant, by reason of failure to call evidence from the company’s accountants, when the respondents, as liquidators, were in an equal or better position to call that evidence.

[2014] NZCA 449    CA 122/2014 

Result The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.


2 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

MORGENSTERN v JEFFREYS CA122/2014 [2014] NZCA 449   11 September 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ARTHUR SYLVAN MORGENSTERN v STEPHANIE BETH JEFFREYS AND TIMOTHY WILSON DOWNES [2014] NZSC 176   2 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  108/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to recall its judgment.

[2014] NZCA 491    CA 318/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

8 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT CA318/2014 [2014] NZCA 491  6 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 179  8 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  107/2014

Case Name

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London and Sirius International Insurance Group Limited v Crystal Imports Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the automatic reinstatement clauses in the insurance policies.

[2014] NZCA 447    CA 65/2014 

Result The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).


16 December 2014 

Judgment appealed from QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED v WILD SOUTH HOLDINGS LIMITED AND MAXIMS FASHIONS LIMITED CA776/2013 [2014] NZCA 447   10 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON v CRYSTAL IMPORTS LIMITED [2014] NZSC 186     16 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  106/2014

Case Name

QBE Insurance (International) Limited v Wild South Holdings Limited and Maxims Fashions Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the automatic reinstatement clauses in the insurance policies.

[2014] NZCA  447  CA 776/2013

Result

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

12 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED v WILD SOUTH HOLDINGS LIMITED AND MAXIMS FASHIONS LIMITED CA776/2013 [2014] NZCA 447   10 September 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  105/2014

Case Name

Zoggs International Limited v Sexwax Incorporated

Summary

Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for comparing the existing and proposed trade marks under s 17(1)(a) of the Act –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider granting the applicant’s trade mark application in part – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning earlier findings of fact which were not plainly wrong.

[2014] NZCA  311   CA 461/2013

Result A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.

 

2 March 2015

Judgment appealed from SEXWAX INCORPORATED V ZOGGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED CA461/2013 [2014] NZCA 311 9 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed ZOGGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v SEXWAX INCORPORATED [2015] NZSC 16  2 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  104/2014

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

Summary

Civil Appeal – Insolvency Act 2006 – Whether judicial review proceedings are within the scope of s 101(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 2006.

[2014] NZCA 481

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 December 2014

_______________

The application to recall the judgment of 2 December 2014 and the second application for leave to appeal against the judgment of French J are dismissed.

23 December 2014

------------------

Further application for recall dismissed.

9 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZCA 481  2 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 175    2 December 2014

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 191   23 December 2014

2nd recall judgment - recall dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 19 9 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  103/2014

Case Name

Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the judicial review application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not judicial misconduct for a judge to have unsatisfied liabilities to a party that are not disclosed in cases involving that party, to sit in such cases, and to deny such liabilities - Whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner failed to adopt a proper process – Whether the judicial review proceedings are abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs.

[2014] NZCA  441   CA 357/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.  If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought.  If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.

2 December 2014

________________

Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014.

We fix costs and disbursements as follows:

To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50;

To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.

8 June 2015

Judgment appealed from

BRADBURY & ANOR v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER CA357/2013 [2014] NZCA 441  8 September 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY AND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLES v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 174     2 December 2014

Costs judgment

CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY AND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLES v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 80     8 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  102/2014

Case Name

Victoria Elizabeth Bethell as Administrator of the estate of R M Bethell and Maria Gael Bethell v Christine  Anne Bethell

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Deed of Family Arrangement and whether it made a number of other errors.

[2014] NZCA 442   CA 33/2014

Results

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

3 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

BETHELL & ANOR v BETHELL CA33/2014 [2014] NZCA 442   5 September 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VICTORIA ELIZABETH BETHELL as administrator of the estate of ROSS MCKAY BETHELL v CHRISTINE ANNE BETHELL [2014] NZSC 177   3 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  101/2014

Case Name

Elvis Heremia Teddy v New Zealand Poice

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Maritime Transport Act 1994 – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 65 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 applied extraterritorially to New Zealand ships – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the arrest powers in the Crimes Act 1961 empower the New Zealand Police to stop and board New Zealand ships and to arrest offenders extraterritorially.

[2014] NZCA 422   CA 614/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

17 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

TEDDY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA614/2013 [2014] NZCA 422    28 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ELVIS HEREMIA TEDDY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZSC 6   17 February 2015

 

 

Case Number SC  100/2014
Case Name

T v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant’s right to a fair trial was breached in the course of his arrest and detention, giving rise to a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow the applicant to speak on points of law in the Court of Appeal hearing.

[2014] NZCA 378  CA 693/2011

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

19 February 2015

Judgment appealed from

T (CA693/2011) v R CA693/2011 [2014] NZCA 378  7 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

T (SC 100/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 9    19 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  99/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the Registrar’s decision that refused to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 456   CA 318/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

8 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT CA318/2014 [2014] NZCA 456   16 September 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 179  8 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  98/2014

Case Name

Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Fanshawe 136 Limited, 136 Fanshawe Limited and Fanshawe Capital Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the approach adopted by Court of Appeal in determining the appropriate remedy in cases where an equitable estoppel was wrong in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the appropriate remedy in this case.

[2014] NZCA 407  CA 24/2012

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

1 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED CA24/2014 [2014] NZCA 407   21 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED [2014] NZSC 173   1 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  97/2014

Case Name

Collins Eze v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal is manifestly excessive – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the disparity between the applicant’s sentence and the sentences imposed on co-offenders.

[2014] NZCA 529  CA 760/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

12 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

GOURLEY V R CA310/2014 [2014] NZCA 529    31 October 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 not available

 

 

Case Number

SC  96/2014

Case Name

Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Attorney-General and others.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the Registrar’s decision that refused to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 374  CA 763/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

11 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA763/2012 [2014] NZCA 374   7 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (sued on behalf of the Department of Corrections) [2014] NZSC 161     11 November 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  95/2014

Case Name

William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell

Summary

Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established.

[2014] NZCA 377  CA 31/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.

12 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

MURRELL V HAMILTON CA31/2014 [2014] NZCA 377   7 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

WILLIAM ELLIOT HAMILTON v JANE MAREE MURRELL [2014] NZSC 162   12 November 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  94/2014

Case Name

Mariam Tohuia Filihia  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s trial counsel made no error in the conduct of the case which resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the reconstructive evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 17 year minimum period of imprisonment.

[2014] NZCA 401  CA 786/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

29 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

FILIHIA V R CA786/2013 [2014] NZCA 401   15 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

FILIHIA v R [2014] NZSC 154   29 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  93/2014

Case Name

Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen

Summary

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

Result

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

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

31 October 2014

___________________

Appeal dismissed.

17 June 2015

Hearing

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

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  92/2014

Case Name

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

Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013

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

 

30 October 2014

_________________

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

15 March 2016

Transcript

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave approved

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

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  91/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that they lacked jurisdiction to make the order sought under s 61A(1) – Whether the law requires that publicly recorded judgments be issued to dispose of such applications.
Minute 28 August 2014.

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

15 September 2014

____________

Application for recall dismissed.

10 October 2014

HC judgment

SIEMER v REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT [2014] NZHC 1179  29 May 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 125   15 September 2014

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 143   10 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  90/2014

Case Name

Accent Management Limited v Attorney-General and Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy if a Judge attempting to calculate tax overlooks the direction in s EH 8(1) of the Income Tax Act 1994 that subpart EG and s DL 1(3) of that Act are not to apply, where failure to comply with them engages the Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights 1688 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to overlook the direction in s EH 8(1), whether in demanding tax or reviewing such a demand - Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.

[2014] NZCA 351 CA 541/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.  If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought.  If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.

2 December 2014

_____________

We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.

8 June 2015

Judgment appealed from

ACCENT MANAGEMENT LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR CA541/2013 [2014] NZCA 351    5 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY AND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLES v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 174    2 December 2014

Costs judgment

CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY AND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLES v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 80     8 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  89/2014

Case Name

Kung We Chen v Dilworth Trust Board

Summary

Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

[2014] NZCA 352 CA 79/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

21 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

 CHEN v DILWORTH TRUST BOARD CA79/2014 [2014] NZCA 352   28 July 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 KUNG WE CHAN v DILWORTH TRUST BOARD [2014] NZSC 149   21 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  88/2014

Case Name

Helen Elizabeth Milner v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the verdicts were unreasonable

[2014] NZCA 366 CA 120/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 April 2015

Transcript

Leave hearing : 16 February 2015

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

Judgment appealed from

MILNER V R CA120/2014 [2014] NZCA 366   5 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MILNER v R [2015] NZSC 38     16 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  87/2014

Case Name

Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which has been the subject of an appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to indemnity costs – Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.

[2014] NZCA 350 CA 623/103

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.  If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought.  If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.

2 December 2014

_________

Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014.

We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.

8 June 2015

Judgment appealed from

[2014] NZCA 350  5 August 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY AND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLES v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 174    2 December 2014
Costs judgment - CLIVE RICHARD BRADBURY AND GREGORY ALAN PEEBLES v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 80     8 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  86/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the main ground of the appellant’s application for an order under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the relevant application was subject to the review of the Registrar – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Registrar was correct to conclude that the appellant did not meet the financial test – Whether the Chambers judgment will be an unsafe contradiction of prior directions given by the Supreme Court.

[2014] NZCA 358 CA 173/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER CA173/2014 [2014] NZCA 358  30 July 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 138  9 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  85/2014

Case Name

Fiona Caroline Graham  v Queenstown Lakes District Council

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.

[2012] NZHC 284

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

The Wanaka Gym Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2012]   NZHC 284

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

THE WANAKA GYM LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 198   23
December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  84/2014

Case Name

The Wanaka Gym Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.
[2012] NZHC 284

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

The Wanaka Gym Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2012]   NZHC 284

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

THE WANAKA GYM LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 198   23
December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  83/2014

Case Name Tatsuhiko Koyama v New Zealand Law Society
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether there was a procedural defect or lack of jurisdiction in relation to the High Court judgment.

[2014] NZHC 1146 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements determined if necessary by the Registrar.

10 October 2014

Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

TATSUHIKO KOYAMA v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2014] NZSC 144  10 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  82/2014

Case Name Jonathan Dixon v The Queen
Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 329 CA 518/2013 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.

23 October 2014

___________________

A The appeal is dismissed.

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

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

20 October 2015

Transcript

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment / Media release

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  81/2014

Case Name Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35 – Whether the Court of Appeal, on an application to review a Court of Appeal Registrar’s decision on security for costs, must provide a notice of hearing and the opportunity to provide evidence and submissions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting an extension of time for the Registrar to consider the appropriate quantum of costs on consolidation.

[2014] NZCA 334 CA 47/2014; CA 126/2014 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay to the respondent costs on the application of $1,000 together with disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

10 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

BURGESS v TSB BANK LIMITED CA47/2014 and CA126/2014 [2014] NZCA 334 [17 July 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

GARY OWEN BURGESS v TSB BANK LIMITED [2014] NZSC 141 [10 October 2014]


Case Number

SC  80/2014

Case Name The Queen v TWW
Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013 

Result

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

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

10 October 2014

______________________

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

18 December 2015

Hearing

12 February 2015.   

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

Judgment appealed from

 

Leave judgment

 

Substantive judgment / Media release

 

   

 

Case Number

SC  79/2014

Case Name Kathryn Frances Boswell v Owen Ross Millar
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account improper evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial Judge’s finding that there was no evidence of a failure to cooperate.

[2014] NZCA 314  CA 293/2013 

Result The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.


7 October 2014

Judgment appealed from BOSWELL v OWEN ROSS MILLAR CA293/2013 [2014] NZCA 314 [10 July 2014]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed KATHRYN FRANCES BOSWELL v OWEN ROSS MILLAR [2014] NZSC 136  [7 October 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  78/2014

Case Name LFDB    v SM
Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 326  CA 864/2013 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326).

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.  

The Registrar is directed to set down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible during 2014.

25 September 2014

_______________

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

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
20 November 2014

Hearing

5 December 2014.
Chief Justice, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Result

Leave to appeal is revoked.
Costs reserved.
5 December 2015  

A  The appellant must pay costs of $52,245.63 and disbursements of $1,511.12 in respect of the appeal.

B  The appellant must also pay in addition to costs previously ordered, disbursements of $437.30 in respect of the stay application determined by the Court.

31 March 2015

 

Case Number

SC  77/2014

Case Name R v M and others
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether certain procedural directions should have been made by the Court of Appeal.

[2014] NZCA 304  CA 82/2014 

Result

The application to file further submissions is declined.

The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014

______________

A   The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B   The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C  The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D  Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014). 
E  Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.

27 February 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

N v M [2015] NZSC 15    27 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC  76/2014

Case Name Hakaoro Hakaoro v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was open to the District Court Judge to rely upon an opinion expressed in the probation report that the applicant lacked remorse when there existed independent evidence to the contrary – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was open to the District Court Judge to rely solely on the opinion of the probation officer when deciding that home detention would not be granted.

[2014] NZCA 310  CA 176/2014 

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

HAKAORO v R CA176/2014 [2014] NZCA 310 [8 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 HAKAORO HAKAORO v R [2014] NZSC 169 [20 November 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  75/2014

Case Name Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 321  CA 210/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.

26 September 2014

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ V COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA210/2014 [2014] NZCA 321 [14 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZSC 132 [26 September 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  74/2014

Case Name Toese Tu’uaga v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not fail to put the defence case to the jury – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice in the way in which the defence case as presented by trial counsel was described to the jury.

[2014] NZCA 304  CA 82/2014 

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

TU'UAGA v R CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 [3 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 TOESE TU'UAGA v R [2014] NZSC 164 [20 November 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  73/2014

Case Name Maythem Kamil Radhi v New Zealand Police
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Immigration Act 1987, ss 142 and 144 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “arrival” in New Zealand was not a requirement for an offence to be committed under s 142(fa) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was an offence to attempt to commit the offence set out in s 142(fa) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the multiplier provision in s 144(1A) of the Immigration Act 1987 applies to both the fine and the period of imprisonment set out in that section.

[2014] NZCA 327  CA 322/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

29 September 2014

Judgment appealed from

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE V RADHI (AKA MAYTHAM KAMIL RADHI) CA322/2013 [2014] NZCA 327 [17 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 RADHI v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZSC 135 [29 September 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  72/2014

Case Name Razdan Rafiq v Google New Zealand Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 320  CA 174/2014

Result

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

17 September 2014

________________________

Application for recall dismissed.

6 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ V GOOGLE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA174/2014 [2014] NZCA 320 [14 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v GOOGLE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 126 [17 September 2014]

Recall judgment - recall dismissed RAZDAN RAFIQ v GOOGLE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 159 [6 November 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  71/2014

Case Name KW v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to deal with a number of grounds of appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing vital evidence to be provided to the Court.

[2014] NZCA 241  CA 526/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

10 September 2014

Judgment appealed from

not electronically available

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

not electronically available

 

 

Case Number

SC  70/2014

Case Name Jet Trustees Limited  v Robert Mark Patrick Dunphy, Greymouth Holdings Limited and others
Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 174 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order of the High Court that the appellant sell its shares – Whether the Court of Appeal acted disproportionately by not limiting the relief granted to the minimum extent necessary to address the proven oppression.

[2014] NZCA 266  CA 366/2013; 

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first, second, seventh and eighth respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements.

9 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

STURGESS v DUNPHY CA366/2013 CA717/2013 CA367/2013 [2014] NZCA 266 [24 June 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 JET TRUSTEES LIMITED v ROBERT MARK PATRICK DUNPHY [2014] NZSC 140 [9 October 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  69/2014

Case Name Margot Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Summary

Civil Appeal – Civil procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for an extension of time to file a case on appeal and apply for a hearing date.

[2014] NZCA 284  CA 84/2013.

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 September 2014

_______________

Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
6 March 2015

Judgment appealed from

CREQUER V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA84/2013 [2014] NZCA 284 [30 June 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MARGOT CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2014] NZSC 119 [2 September 2014]

Recall judgment - recall dismissed MARGOT CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015]
NZSC 18 [6 March 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC  68/2014

Case Name Rhys Michael Cullen v The Queen
Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 325 CA 769/2013.

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

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

22 October 2014

__________________

Appeal dismissed.

29 May 2015

Transcript

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave approved

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

Substantive judgment / Media release

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  67/2014

Case Name R v The Queen
Summary Criminal Appeal – s 385 Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the verdicts of the jury are unsafe by virtue of the circumstances in which they were delivered by the jury – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

[2014] NZCA 239  CA 282/2103
Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

22 December 2014

Judgment appealed from

R (CA283/2013) V R CA283/2013 [2014] NZCA 239 [17 June 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

R v R [2014] NZSC 194   22 December 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  66/2014

Case Name

Robert Alfred Stevenson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2)(a) and New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990, s 25(h) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus – Whether s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies in this case – Whether s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 impacts on the interpretation of s 14(2)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering all relevant evidence.

[2014] NZCA 308  CA 321/2014

Result

1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

4 September 2014

___________

2.
The application for recall is dismissed.

18 September 2014

____________

3.
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.

25 September 2014

Judgment appealed from

STEVENSON V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CA321/2014 [2014] NZCA 308 [4 July 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ROBERT ALFRED STEVENSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2014] NZSC 120 [4 September 2014]

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

ROBERT ALFRED STEVENSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2014] NZSC 128 [18 September 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  65/2014

Case Name Evgeny Orlov v The National Standards Committee No 1
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court to debar the applicant’s counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a judge who had subsequently recused himself could exercise the jurisdiction to debar counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow the applicant to record the hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making directions as to how the amicus should perform their duties.

[2014] NZCA 242    CA 127/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.

26 September 2014                        

Judgment appealed from

ORLOV v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 CA127/2014 [2014] NZCA 242 [13 June 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed EVGENY ORLOV v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 [2014] NZSC 133 [26 September 2014]

 

   

Case Number

SC  64/2014

Case Name AD v The Queen
Summary

[2014] NZCA 223  CA 490/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

21  August 2014

Judgment appealed from

not available online

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

AD v R [2014] NZSC 114 [21 August 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  63/2014

Case Name

Colin Geoffrey Hayball v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal and/or the trial Judge acted impartially – Whether the verdict could reasonably have been supported on the evidence – Whether the sentence was unreasonable.

[2014] NZCA 237    CA 658/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 September 2014

Judgment appealed from

HAYBALL v R CA658/2013 [2014] NZCA 237 [23 June 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

COLIN GEOFFREY HAYBALL v R [2014] NZSC 127 [18 September 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  62/2014

Case Name Paul Andrew Gottermeyer v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002, s 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that mental health issues do not prevent s 104(1)(e) being engaged.

[2014] NZCA 205  CA 739/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

19 August 2014

judgment appealed from

not available online

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PAUL ANDREW GOTTERMEYER v R [2014] NZSC 115 [19 August 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  61/2014

Case Name Todd Aaron Marteley v The Legal Services Commissioner
Summary

[2014] NZCA 185  CA 735/2013

Result

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

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

22 July 2014

_______________

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

21 August 2015

Transcript

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave approved

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

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  60/2014

Case Name

Douglas and Christine Banks v Grey District Council

Summary

Civil Appeal – civil procedure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that both appeals be heard together and in one day – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that the appeals be conducted using the case on appeal filed by the respondent – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that questions of costs be determined as part of the appeals. 

CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013   Stevens J

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

5 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

DOUGLAS AND CHRISTINE SANDRA BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 102 [5 August 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  59/2014

Case Name Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Summary

Civil – Supreme Court Rules 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s judicial review proceedings.

[2014] NZHC 1179    Civ 2013 – 404 4750
Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

5 August 2014
Judgment appealed from

SIEMER v REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT [2014] NZHC 1179 [29 May 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2014] NZSC 100 [5 August 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  58/2014

Case Name Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan, CT group Limited, Cartan Global LLP v Premier Events Group Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to strike out the proceedings.

[2014] NZCA 184   CA 773/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 together with any disbursements authorised by the Registrar.

13 August 2014.

Judgment appealed from

BEATTIE V PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED CA773/2013 [2014] NZCA 184 [16 May 2014]

Leave judgment - leaver dismissed

MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE v PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED [2014] NZSC 111 [13 August 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC 57/2014

Case Name

New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc and Vero Insurance Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal– Fire Service Act 1975– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their interpretation of s 48(7) of the Fire Service Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their understanding of the levy obligations under the New Zealand Ports Collective insurance arrangement

[2014] NZCA 179   CA 56/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZCA 179)..
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.

18 August 2014

__________

A    The appeal is allowed.
B   The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C    The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside. 
D    We make no order for costs.

13 May 2015

Hearing 15 December 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Judgment appealed from NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION V INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED CA56/2013 [2014] NZCA 179 [13 May 2014]
Leave judgment - leave granted NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION v INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW
ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 113 [18 August 2014]
Substantive judgment / Media release NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION v INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW
ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2015] NZSC 59 [13 May 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC  56/2014

Case Name

Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland. Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge, John Carter, Timothy Upton Slack and Brent O’Callahan

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making plain errors in the findings of fact – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognise that there was a loss of chance to take steps to recover the Gao’s deposits – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the damages – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the finding that the District Court Judge went beyond the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the claim because the amount claimed exceeded the statutory limit – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking that the High Court had set aside the substantive judgment between the appellant and the 2nd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the error of law made by the lower courts on the issue of assignment and consequential unconscionable conduct by the 3rd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding full indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking relevant authorities.

[2014] NZCA 169   CA 362/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.

24 September 2014

Judgment appealed from

LEE V DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA362/2013 [2014] NZCA 169 [7 May 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed YOON LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZSC 130 [24 September 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  55/2014

Case Name

G v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction on the ground that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

[2013] NZCA 222  CA  663/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

22 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

G (CA663/2012) V R CA663/2012 [2013] NZCA 222 [12 June 2013]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

G (SC55/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 95 [22 July 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  54/2014

Case Name

Philip John Woolley v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions for offences against s 13 of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing his appeal against sentence. 

[2014] NZCA 178   CA 687/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 August 2014
Judgment appealed from

WOOLLEY V R CA687/2013 [2014] NZCA 178 [12 May 2014]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PHILIP JOHN WOOLLEY v R [2014] NZSC 99 [5 August 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  53/2014

Case Name

Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Summary

Civil Appeal –  Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal resentenced the applicant in relation to all offending or only in relation to the burglary charge – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly issued the warrant of imprisonment in relation to offending other than the burglary charge.

[2013] NZCA 71   CA 93/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 June 2014

________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014

Judgment appealed from

VAN WAKEREN V CEO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COA CA93/2013 [20 March 2013]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VAN WAKEREN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2014] NZSC 65  [6 June 2014]

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

VAN WAKEREN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2014] NZSC 79 [24 June 2014]

 

 

Case Number

SC  52/2014

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs to the respondent¬.  

[2014] NZCA 158   CA 855/2012

Results

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

15 August 2014

___________________________________________

The application for recall is dismissed.

25 February 2016

Judgment appealed from

RABSON v CHAPMAN CA855/2012 [2014] NZCA 158    29 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

 

 

Case number

SC  51/2014

Case name Forivermor Limited v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal –   Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that clauses 1.2 (b)(iv) and 5.1 of the Code of Banking Practice were not each incorporated into the finance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent did not breach the said clauses, in particular by the advance of funds on or about 9 September 2008 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant suffered no loss as a result of the action and/or inaction of the respondent.

[2014] NZCA 129 CA 790/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $2,500.00

10 July 2014         

Judgment appealed from

FORIVERMOR LIMITED v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (FORMERLY ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED) CA790/2012 [2014] NZCA 129  7 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

FORIVERMOR LIMITED v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (FORMERLY ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED) [2014] NZSC 89    10 July 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  50/2014

Case Name

Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson

Summary

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

Result

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

5 August 2014

_________________________________

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

13 March 2015

Hearing

4 December 2014.
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold. O’Regan  JJ.

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment /Media release

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  49/2014

Case Name Alan Canavan v Damien Grant and Stevcen Khov as liquidators of Quantum Grow Limited in liquidation.
Summary

[2014] NZCA 127   CA 399/2013

Result

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

4 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

GRANT & ANOR v LOTUS GARDENS LTD CA399/2013 [2014] NZCA 127  4 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ALAN CANAVAN v DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUANTUM GROW LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 82   4 July 2014

 

 

Case
Number

SC  48/2014

Case Name Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications Limited
Summary    

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the claim for judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in directing the Registrar not to accept the documents for filing – Whether or not the District Court judge erred in dismissing the claim for breach of copyright – Whether the orders for costs that resulted in bankruptcy were properly made – Whether or not the principles of res judicata are applicable.

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 2014

_____________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
25 June 2014

___________________________
Further application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAJENDRA PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED [2014] NZSC 78  20 June 2014

Recall judgment- recall dismissed

 PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED [2014] NZSC 81   25 June 2014

 

 

Case
Number

SC  47/2014

Case Name Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the claim for judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in directing the Registrar not to accept the documents for filing – Whether or not the District Court judge erred in dismissing the claim for breach of copyright – Whether the orders for costs that resulted in bankruptcy were properly made – Whether or not the principles of res judicata are applicable

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 2014

________________________________

Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
25 June 2014

_____________________________________

Further application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2014.

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAJENDRA PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED [2014] NZSC 78  20 June 2014

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

 PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED [2014] NZSC 81  25 June 2014

 

 

Case
Number

SC  46/2014

Case Name John David Wright v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in principle – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly categorised the offending as within band three of Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39 – Whether the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to the sentencing hierarchy, the principles of sentence indication and other matters.

[2014] NZCA 119   CA  831/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

R V WRIGHT CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119    3 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

JOHN DAVID WRIGHT v R [2014] NZSC 87   7 July 2014

 
Case
Number

SC  45/2014

Case Name Bruce James King v ASB Bank Limited
Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 102   CA  810/2013

Result

A The application for a stay of the determination of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

28 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

KING V ASB BANK LIMITED CA810/2013 [2014] NZCA 102  27 March 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

BRUCE JAMES KING v ASB BANK LIMITED [2014] NZSC 97     28 July 2014

 

 

Case
Number

SC  44/2014

Case Name Pravin Fia Havi Prasad Kumar v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice through his contact with a rape complainant.  

[2014] NZCA 116   CA 575/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

12 August 2014
Judgment appealed from

KUMAR V R CA575/2012 [2014] NZCA 116 2 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PRAVIN FIA HAVI PRASAD KUMAR v R [2014] NZSC 109     12 August 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  43/2014

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

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

[2014] NZCA 98   CA 101/2013

Result

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

7 August 2014

_______________________________________

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

15 December 2014

Hearing 17 November 2014

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

 

 

Case
Number

SC  42/2014

Case Name Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen
Summary

[2014] NZCA 83   CA 101/2013

Result

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

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

____________________________

Appeal dismissed.

16 April 2015

Hearing

22 October 2014.

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

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

 

 

Case
Number

SC  41/2014

Case Name Tower Insurance Limited v Skyward Aviation 2008 Limited
Summary

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

Result

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

22 July 2014

________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

15 December 2014

Hearing

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


5 November 2014 

Judgment appealed from

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

Leave judgment - leave approved

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

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

 

 

Case
Number

SC  40/2014

Case Name Razdan Rafiq v The Privacy Commissioner
Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 137   CA 116/2014

Result Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014

____________________________________________

Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT CA116/2013 [2014] NZCA 137   10 April 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 72    16 June 2014

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 145   10 October 2014 

 

Case
Number

SC  39/2014

Case Name B v Waitemata District Health Board
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to waive the requirement to pay security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 65   CA 524/2013

Result

Notice of abandonment of appeal having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
7 November 2014

Judgment appealed from

B V WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD CA524/2013 [2014] NZCA 65  12 March 2014

 

Case Number

SC  38/2014

Case Name Bruce Franklin Charnley v The Queen
Summary  

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 131B(1) – Whether or not the conviction for sexual grooming was consistent with the reality of the situation – Whether or not the conviction for sexual grooming was consistent with the purpose of the offence – Whether or not a sentence of preventative detention should have been imposed. 

[2013] NZCA 226  CA 426/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 June 2014

Judgment appealed from

CHARNLEY V R CA426/2012 [2013] NZCA 226  12 June 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

BRUCE FRANKLIN CHARNLEY v R [2014] NZSC 77    20 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  37/2014

Case Name Peter Charles York and Alpine Glacier Motel Limited v Westland District Council
Summary

Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act.

[2014] NZCA 59   CA 774/2013

Result A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

16 June 2014

Judgment appealed from WESTLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL v YORK & ANOR CA774/2013 [2014] NZCA 59
Leave judgment - leave dismissed PETER CHARLES YORK v WESTLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 71   16 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  36/2014

Case Name Paul Anthony Blair v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal –Evidence Act 2006, ss 46 and 126 – Whether voice identification evidence was admitted at trial contrary to the provisions of s 46 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admitting the voice identification evidence did not materially affect the result and therefore there was no miscarriage of  justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the case against the defendant did not depend “substantially” on the voice identification evidence within the meaning of the word contained at section 126.

[2014] NZCA 101  CA 92/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal refused.

21 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

BLAIR V R CA92/2013 [2014] NZCA 101   31 March 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PAUL ANTHONY BLAIR v R [2014] NZSC 92    21 July 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  35/2014

Case Name Sajo Oyang Corporation and Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Limited v The Ministry for Primary Industries and The Director - General of the Ministry for Primary Industries
Summary

Civil Appeal –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-defendant third parties do not have standing to participate in an application relating to the special circumstances exception to automatic forfeiture of property following conviction for specified fisheries offences under s 255C of the Fisheries Act 1996

[2014] NZCA 46  CA 167/2013

Result A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.

17 June 2014

Judgment appealed from

THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES v SAJO OYANG CORPORATION CA167/2013 [2014] NZCA 46  3 March 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

SAJO OYANG CORPORATION v THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2014] NZSC 73    7 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  34/2014

Case Name David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation) v Rhys James Cain and Bruce Donald Gemmell as liquidators of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation) 
Summary

[2014] NZHC 165   Civ 2013 409 1779

Result

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 May 2014

Judgment appealed from

Cain and Gemmell [2014] NZHC 165    14 February 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

DAVID JOHN YOUNG AS DIRECTOR OF SPLENDIDE STURCTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v MARK GREGORY BARLTROP [2014] NZSC 47     2 May 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  33/2014

Case Name

David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether or not the High Court erred in upholding the liquidation order made by the District Court.

Civ 2013 409 1059

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 May 2014

 
Judgment appealed from

Cain and Gemmell [2014] NZHC 165    14 February 2014
 

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

DAVID JOHN YOUNG AS DIRECTOR OF SPLENDIDE STURCTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v MARK GREGORY BARLTROP [2014] NZSC 47     2 May 2014

  

 

Case Number

SC  32/2014

Case Name Israel Zuydendorp v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – The Court of Appeal erred in holding that counsel’s behaviour did not lead to an unfair trial – Appellate counsel erred conducting the appeal – The Court of Appeal erred in findings in relation to propensity of witness testimony.

[2014] NZCA 35  CA 254/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

ZUYDENDORP v R CA254/2013 [2014] NZCA 35    26 February 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ISRAEL ZUYDENDORP v R [2014] NZSC 88     7 July 2014

 
Case Number

SC  31/2014

Case Name Alavine Feliuia Liu v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Summary

Civil Appeal – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 9, 9.1 and 3 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that art 9, and in particular art 9.1, were not relevant to deportation cases – Whether the respondent erred in not having specific regard to art 9 notwithstanding  its consideration of other specific articles in the convention – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that with the exception of Ewebiyi v Parr no other authorities referred to it held that art 9.1 applied to deportation cases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant case law and its assessment as to the reconciliation of arts 3 and 9.1.

CA 4/2014

[2014] NZCA 37  CA 754/2012

Result A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

20 June 2014

Judgment appealed from

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION & EMPLOYMENT v LIU CA754/2012 [2014] NZCA 37  26 February 2014 

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ALAVINE FELIUAI LIU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 76    20 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  30/2014

Case Name Vincent Siemer v New Zealand Court of Appeal and Attorney-General
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the means of conveying the judgment upholding the Registrar’s decision was lawful. 

CA 4/2014

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

11 June 2014

______________________________

Application for recall dismissed.
4 July 2014
Judgment appealed from

not available online

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT SIEMER v NEW ZEALAND COURT OF APPEAL [2014] NZSC 69   11 June 2014

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

VINCENT SIEMER v NEW ZEALAND COURT OF APPEAL [2014] NZSC 84   4 July 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  29/2014

Case Name Ioritana Tuau v The Queen
Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

[2013] NZCA 623  CA 281/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

TUAU v R CA281/2013 [2013] NZCA 623   6 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed IORITANA TUAU v R [2014] NZSC 83    2 July 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  28/2014

Case Name RJL v The Queen
Summary

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

[2013] NZCA 191  CA 707/2012

Result

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

8 August 2014

_________________________________________________

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.

21 April 2015

Hearing

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

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

L v R [2014] NZSC 107   8 August 2014

Substantive judgment / Media release

 

 

Case Number

SC  27/2014

Case Name Mark Lee 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  828/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

R V ANTONIEVIC & ORS CA818/2012 & ORS [2013] NZCA 483  15 October 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

TERRY JONES v R [2014] NZSC 85   4 July 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  26/2014

Case Name

Johan Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand, Commissioner of Police and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(5) and sch 3, s 2 – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was deficient because it failed to properly state its reasons in breach of rule 27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction by treating the hearing as a de novo hearing when the appellant had elected for a non de novo hearing – Whether “suspicion” falls below the threshold of “knowing” or reasonably knowing” in terms of s 135(5) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the right to lay representation in the Employment Court, as provided under s 2 of sch 3, to the Court of Appeal. 

[2014] NZCA 16   CA 400/2013

Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.

28 May 2014
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

 

Case Number

SC  25/2014

Case Name

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

Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 19    CA 420/2013

_________________________________________

Appeal dismissed

23 December 2014

Result

25 and 26 August 2014

Hearing

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

Judgment appealed from

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

Substantive judgment / Media release

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

 


Case Number

SC  24/2014

Case Name

Jeffrey Ugochukwu Orji v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision that a defence of reasonable excuse was not available under s 142(1)(d)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to admit new evidence.

[2013] NZCA 629    CA 167/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

21 May 2014

Judgment appealed from ORJI v R CA167/2012 [2013] NZCA 629  11 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

JEFFERY UGOCHUKWU ORJI v R [2014] NZSC 59   21 May 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  23/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005

[2014] NZCA 3   CA 104/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

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

30 April 2014

__________

Application for recall dismissed.

26 May 2014

______________

Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
 

 

 

Case Number

SC  22/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 66 – Whether the Court of Appeal negated the statutory right of appeal against a High Court Judge’s order provided by s 66 – Whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment impedes the statutory guarantee to judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what constitutes a ‘judicial order’.

[2014] NZCA 5 

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

1 May 2014

_______________

Application for recall dismissed.

26 May 2014

________________

Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
 

 

 

Case Number

SC  21/2014

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer v Official Assignee

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005

[2014] NZCA 9   CA 863/2013

Result

The application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

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

30 April 2014

___________

Application for recall dismissed.

26 May 2014

_______________

Second application for recall dismissed.

5 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  20/2014

Case Name

Karl Teangiotau Nuku v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether a miscarriage of justice occasioned due to counsel error – Whether an extension of time should be allowed.

[2012] NZCA 595   CA 516/2011

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

1 May 2014

Judgment appealed from

PANDEY-JOHNSON & ANOR V R COA CA515/2011   19 December 2012

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKU v R [2014] NZSC 45    1 May 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  19/2014

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Commissioner of Police

Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.

[2014] NZCA 4  CA 812/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 June 2014

____________

Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT CA812/2013 [2014] NZCA 4    7 February 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND
EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 72     16 June 2014
Recall judgment - recall dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 145    10 October 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  18/2014

Case Name

Bon Vincent Namana v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.

[2013] NZCA 640   CA 98/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

4 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

NAMANA V R CA98/2013 [2013] NZCA 640    11 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PAUL ANTHONY THOMPSON v R [2014] NZSC 36    4 April 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  17/2014

Case Name

BRM v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 92 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor did not breach their cross-examination duties – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in relation to appropriate jury directions was wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law partial defence of excessive force is not recognised in New Zealand.

[2013] NZCA 657   CA 260/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

1 May 2014

Judgment appealed from

MCNAUGHTON V R CA260/2012 [2013] NZCA 657   19 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

 

 

Case Number

SC  16/2014

Case Name

Ross Donald Macrae and Lynette Gweneth Joy Macrae v Anthony Patrick Walshe and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the right of way allows access only to a single dwelling on the dominant land and for naturally related or ancillary purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s property was a “dwelling” for the purpose of the easement– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the easement should be modified in accordance with that Court’s conclusions – Whether the Court erred in relation to costs.

[2013] NZCA 664 CA 814/2012

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.

22 July 2014

Judgment appealed from

MACRAE AND ANOR V WALSHE AND ORS CA814/2012 [2013] NZCA 664   19 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ROSS DONALD MACRAE AND LYNETTE GWENETH JOY MACRAE v ANTHONY PATRICK WALSHE [2014] NZSC 96     22 July 2014

 

 

Case
Number

SC  15/2014

Case Name

SSK v The Queen

Summary

[2013] NZHC 3487   CRI 2012 093 13988  

Result

The application for leave to appeal directly to this Court is dismissed.

Publication of the judgment or its contents in the news media, or on the internet or other publicly available database, is prohibited prior to trial.  Publication in a law report or law digest is permitted, however.

18 February 2014

Judgment appealed from

not available online

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

not available online

 

 

Case Number

SC  14/2014

Case Name

Sovereign Assurance Company Limited, ASB Bank Limited, Sovereign Services Limited, CBA Asset Finance (NZ) Limited, CBA Funding (NZ) Limited, CBA Dairy Leasing Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commissioner’s reassessments of the applicants’ income – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the accrual rules in subpt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 were of exclusive application in determining the tax treatment of the commission arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the commissions when received and the commission repayments when paid were not assessable income and deductible expenditure respectively – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Commissioner was entitled to an award of costs.

[2013] NZCA 652 CA 506/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

10 June 2014

Judgment appealed from

SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA506/2012 [2013] NZCA 652      17 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 68    10 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  13/2014

Case Name

P C  v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the evidence from a search of the appellants’ property is admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

[2013] NZCA 653 CA 534/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

CUTFIELD V R CA534/2013 [2013] NZCA 653   16 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

 

 

Case

SC  12/2014

Case Name

CFC v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the evidence from a search of the appellants’ property is admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

[2013] NZCA 653 CA 534/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

CUTFIELD V R CA534/2013 [2013] NZCA 653   16 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

 

 

Case Number

SC  11/2014

Case Name

GFM v JAM

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to approach the appeal as an appeal against the exercise of a discretion in accordance with the test established in May v May – Whether the Court of Appeal mis-stated the primary question and should have asked whether the respondent has shown that the Family Court Judge acted on the wrong principle, failed to take into account some relevant matter or was plainly wrong and whether the High Court Judge had approached the appeal on that basis or had erred in his approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interfered with finding of the Family Court Judge and failed to defer to the Family Court Judge’s expertise – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise a number of discretions exercised by the Family Court Judge and erred in describing the discretion under s 2G(2) as a fettered discretion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting the focus on equal sharing of relationship property (and at date of hearing values as determined by the Court) rather than on a just division – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to take into account the interests of the children – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing the burden of proof on the wife to establish certain key facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to s 18C of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in effectively directing sale of the former family home rather than valuing the home at the date of hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach is unjust to the wife by adopting date of hearing values.

[2013] NZCA 660 CA 566/2012

Result

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.

2 April 2014

Judgment appealed from GFM V JAM CA566/2012 [2013] NZCA 660    17 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32   2 April 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  10/2014

Case Name

Vinelight Nominees Limited and Weyand Investments Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil appeal - tax avoidance - Tax Administration Act 1994.  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was an arrangement with a more than incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance - whether a tax avoidance purpose can be inferred from aspects of a transaction other than those which produce the impugned tax result - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that resort to sGB1 reconstruction power was unnecessary - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the time bar in s 108 did not apply to particular approved issuer levy payments.

[2013] NZCA 655 CA 35/2013

Result A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

 

17 June 2014

Judgment appealed from VINELIGHT NOMINEES LTD & ANOR v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA36/2013 [2013] NZCA 655     16 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINELIGHT NOMINEES LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 74      17 June 2014

 


Case Number

SC  9/2014

Case Name

DH  v The Queen

Summary

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

[2013] NZCA 670 CA 87/2012

Result

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


2 May 2014

_____________

Appeal dismissed.

16 April 2015

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  8/2014

Case Name

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

Summary

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

[2013] NZCA 588  CA571/2013

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

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

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

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

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

5 May 2014

____________________

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

13 March 2015

Hearing

29 – 31  July 2014

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

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

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

Substantive judgment / Media release

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  7/2014

Case Name

Paul Anthony Thompson v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.

[2013] NZCA 640 CA 110/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

4 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

NAMANA V R CA98/2013 [2013] NZCA 640  11 December 2013

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

PAUL ANTHONY THOMPSON v R [2014] NZSC 36    4 April 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  6/2014

Case Name

Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.

[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Cost to the respondents $2,500.00

7 May 2014

Judgment appealed from

GLOVER NO 2 LTD V THE GLOVER TRUST LTD, BAILEY TRUSTEE SERVICES LTD AND AUCKLAND WEST LEGAL SERVICES LTD CA194/2013  [2013] NZCA 608

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

GLOVER No.2 LIMITED v THE GLOVER TRUST LIMITED and OTHERS [2014] NZSC 54    7 May 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  5/2014

Case Name

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

Summary

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

[2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013

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

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

5 May 2014

__________________

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

13 March 2015

Hearing

29 – 31  July 2014

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

Judgment appealed from

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

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  4/2014

Case Name

KWK v The Queen

Summary Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Improperly obtained evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the availability of other investigatory techniques under s 30(3)(e) of the Evidence Act was a factor favouring admissibility of improperly obtained evidence – Whether s 30(3)(e) requires the person(s) exercising the unlawful search to have knowledge of the other investigatory techniques not involving any breach of rights.

[2013] NZCA 616 CA 456/2013
Result Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

6 March 2014
 
Judgment appealed from [2013] NZCA 616 not available online
Leave judgment - leave dismissed not available online

 

 

Case Number

SC  3/2014

Case Name

Graham Edward McCready v ABC and another

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2013] NZCA 646 CA 698/2013

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

9 June 2014

Judgment appealed from MCCREADY V GREEN CABS LIMITED AND BROWN CA698/2013 [2013] NZCA 646 18 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed GRAHAM EDWARD MCCREADY v ABC AND ANOTHER [2014] NZSC 66   9 June 2014

 

 

Case Number

SC  2/2014

Case Name

Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen

Summary

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

[2013] NZCA 593  CA 100/2013

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

__________

Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014

Hearing

19 June 2014.

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

Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted

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

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

 

 

Case Number

SC  1/2014

Case Name

Peter Gerard Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated

Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs because the purpose of the appeal was to challenge a rule that unjustly discriminates against the poor and underprivileged and because the “pro forma” respondent need not appear on the appeal and incur any costs for which security is required

[2013] NZCA 647 CA 665/2013

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00 

6 May 2014

_________________

Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
 
14 May 2014
_____________________

2nd application for recall of judgment declined.

17 June 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 53   6 May 2014

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 57  14 May 2014