Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case summaries 2015

 

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

 


Updated 20 February 2017

 

Case Number

SC 141/2015   

Case Name

JCS Cost Management Ltd and Stephen Roy Johnston v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to interpreting the insurance policy.

[2015] NZCA 524  CA 698/20014

Dates

Leave to appeal JCS Cost Management Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd [2015] NZCA 524 is granted.

The approved question is whether the majority in the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the putative liability did not arise out of conduct that occurred in connection with the insured’s Professional Business Practice.

4 April 2016

Result

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

25 May 2016

Judgment appealed from

JCS COST MANAGEMENT LTD v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD [2015] NZCA 524   9 December 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

JCS COST MANAGEMENT LIMITED v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED [2016] NZSC 32    4 April 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 140/2015   

Case Name

T v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act 2006, s 122 ­– Whether Trial Judge failed to give adequate directions in relation to reliability of propensity evidence – Whether Trial Judge failed to give adequate directions in relation to the prosecutor’s closing address.                          

[2015] NZCA 572  CA 117/2015

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                   

20 June 2016

Judgment appealed from

T (117/2015) v R [2015] NZCA 572     25 November 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

T(SC 140/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 71    20 June 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 139/2015   

Case Name

Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was tainted by bias or predetermination.

[2015] NZCA 579  CA 193/2003

Dates A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.

13 April 2016
Judgment appealed from  CRESER v CRESER [2015] NZCA 579     2 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RICHARD JOHN CRESER v JANINE MICHELLE CRESER AND MARION NGAIRE CRESER (AS
TRUSTEES AND EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JESSE JOY CRESER) [2016] NZSC 37            13 April 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 138/2015   

Case Name

Jeremy James McGuire v Wellington Standards Committee (No 1) and The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

Summary

Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyances Act (Disciplinary Tribunal) Regulations 2008 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the Wellington Standards Committee had jurisdiction to amend the charges against the appellant during the disciplinary hearing – Whether the unsatisfactory conduct charge was invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s order on costs and disbursements.

[2015] NZCA 569  CA 26/2015

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are payable to the First Respondent.
15 February 2016
___

Application for recall dismissed.
Costs $250.00 payable to the first respondent.
6 April 2016
___

2nd application for recall dismissed. (direction)
12 April 2016

Judgment appealed from 

MCGUIRE v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) [2015] NZCA 569    24 November 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment - recall dismissed

 

 

Case Number

SC 137/2015   

Case Name

Matthew John Young  v The District Court at Hamilton

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to give name suppression to the applicant.                             

[2015] NZCA 584   CA 643/2015

Dates

The application for interim order suppressing publication of the applicant’s name is dismissed.

16 December 2015

Judgment appealed from

[2015] NZCA 584   CA 643/2015 not availalbe

SC judgment - dismissed

MATTHEW JOHN YOUNG v THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON [2015] NZSC 193    16 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 136/2015   

Case Name

Robert Craig Winterburn v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that conviction of the applicant on some charges was not unreasonably inconsistent with acquittal on other charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by relying on previous warnings about an indeterminate sentence in imposing a sentence of preventive detention. 

[2015] NZCA 384   CA 587/2014; CA 598/2014

Dates

A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.

B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

15 April 2016

Judgment appealed from

R v WINTERBURN CA587/2014 [2015] NZCA 384   21 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed ROBERT CRAIG WINTERBURN v R [2016] NZSC 38    15 April 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 135/2015   

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman

Summary

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

[2014] NZCA 158   CA 855/2012

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 February 2016
HC judgment

JCS COST MANAGEMENT LTD & JOHNSTON v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD
[2014] NZHC 2718   3 November 2014

Judgment appealed from 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN [2016] NZSC 14   23 February 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 134/2015   

Case Name

Deuce Derrick Junior Evo Savage v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act 2006, s 126 – Whether verdict unreasonable – Whether Trial Judge failed to direct jury appropriately on requirements to establish guilt – Whether Trial Judge gave adequate identification warning.

[2015] NZCA 550   CA 611/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

1 March 2016
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed DEUCE DERRICK JUNIOR EVO SAVAGE v R [2016] NZSC 19   1 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 133/2015   

Case Name

K v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether a miscarriage of justice has arisen due to delay in bringing the matter to trial – Whether the trial Judge should have given a reliability warning under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 

[2015] NZCA 566   CA 665/2014 

Dates The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

15 March 2016
Judgment appealed from

K (CA665/2014) v R [2015] NZCA 566   24 November 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed K (SC 133/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 26   15 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 132/2015   

Case Name

Galvanising (HB ) Limited and others v John Howard Ross Fisk and Tony Wayne Pattison as liquidators of East Quip Limited (in liquidation)

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 292(4B) of the Companies Act.

[2015] NZCA 529   CA 69/2014

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

3 May 2016 
HC judgment FISK v GALVANISING (H.B.) LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3543    20 December 2013
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed GALVANISING (HB) LIMITED v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND TONY WAYNE PATTISON AS LIQUIDATORS OF EAST QUIP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZSC 49     3 May 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 131/2015   

Case Name

The Queen v P

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the statements made by P in his video interview after the interview recommenced at 4pm on 4 June 2014 should be admissible – Whether the evidence of the walk-through of the scene and further statements made by Mr P to police on 6 June 2014 should be admissible.

[2015] NZCA 530   CA 474/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted [P v R [2015] NZCA 530]

B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:

the statements made by Mr P in his video interview after the interview re-commenced at 4 pm on 4 June 2014; and

evidence of the walk-through of the scene and the further statements made by Mr P to police on 6 June 2014

are inadmissible against Mr P at trial.

18 December 2015

Hearing date

21 April 2016

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

Result

Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.  

 

 

Case Number

SC 130/2015   

Case Name

Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King v PFL Finance Limited and Craig Becroft

Summary

Civil appeal – Receivership – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 18 of the Receivership Act 1993 and s 121 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation of loss – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of compellability under the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether there was oppressive enforcement of a credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.

[2015] NZCA 517   CA 74/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

If the applicants are not legally aided, costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents.

If the applicants are legally aided, we make an order under s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011 that, had the applicants not been legally aided, they would have been liable for costs of $2,500.

17 February 2016

Judgment appealed from 

KING v PFL FINANCE LIMITED [2015] NZCA 517    5 November 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

 

Case Number

SC 129/2015   

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in resurrecting an appeal deemed abandoned – Whether the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction in awarding costs to the respondent. 

[2015] NZCA 543   CA 156/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

16 February 2016

The recall application is dismissed.

15 March 2016

HC judgment

RABSON v TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL (NEW ZEALAND) INC [2015] NZHC 334  3 March 2015

Judgment appealed from 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2016] NZSC 9    16 February 2016

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND
INCORPORATED [2016] NZSC 22    15 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 128/2015   

Case Name

Simon John Moffatt Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council           (Environment Canterbury)

Summary

Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the priority of resource consent applications – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that there had been no derogation of the applicant’s rights – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had no legitimate expectation that a resource consent would be granted.

[2015] NZCA 509   CA 745/2013

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

3 May 2016     
HC judgment HAMPTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2433   17 September 2013
Judgment appealed from HAMPTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY) [2015] NZCA 509    2 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed SIMON JOHN MOFFATT HAMPTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENVIRONMENT
CANTERBURY) [2016] NZSC 50   3 May 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 127/2015   

Case Name

Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland;  Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge; John Carter and Brent O’Callaghan and The Official Assignee

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the High Court was entitled to make an award of indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant’s appeal seeking a stay of enforcement was moot, the debts at issue having been discharged.

[2015] NZCA 498    CA 262/2015

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay each of the second and third respondents costs of $2,500.

 17 February 2016

HC judgment

LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZHC 737 [17 April 2015]

Judgment appealed from 

LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ORS [2015] NZCA 498    22 October 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

YOON LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZSC 11    17 February 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 126/2015   

Case Name

David Ingram Rowley v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.

[2015] NZCA 233     CA 572/2012 

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC ¶22-011).

In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].

15 February 2016

Hearing

9 June 2016

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

Result

The appeals are dismissed.   

10 August 2016

HC judgment

R v ROWLEY & SKINNER HC WN CRI 2010-085-006205   20 July 2012

Judgment appealed from

ROWLEY & SKINNER V R CA572/2012 [2015] NZCA 233    10 June 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7     15 February 2016

Substantive judgment / Media release BARRIE JAMES SKINNER v R [2016] NZSC 101    10 August 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 125/2015   

Case Name

Anthony Paul Mount v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.  

[2015] NZCA 489     CA 674/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                  

19 May 2016

Judgment appealed from

MOUNT v R [2015] NZCA 489   19 October 2015

Leave judgment -  leave dismissed

ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT v R [2016] NZSC 56    19 May 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 124/2015   

Case Name

Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald Michael Stewart, Patricia Dore Mary Spencer-Wood, Sophia Maria Hunt And David John McCormick

v

Auckland Council

Summary

Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.

[2015] NZCA 479     CA 251/2014

Dates

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

11 March 2016

___

A.  The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B.  The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.

30 September 2016

HC judgment

J A ROBERTSON & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 765   14 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

WILLIAMS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 479   9 October 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

CHARLES WILLIAM WILLIAMS & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 20   11 March 2016

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

CHARLES WILLIAM WILLIAMS & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 130   30 September 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 123/2015   

Case Name

Christopher Roger King v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to allow a sentence discount for the applicant’s previous good character.

[2015] NZCA 475     CA 19/2015

Dates Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 February 2016
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 

 

Case Number

SC 122/2015   

Case Name

M Hayes v Family Court and Judith Guerin

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Family Protection Act 1955, s 3A – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim that the Family Court had no jurisdiction under s 3A(2) Family Protection Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no proceeding in the High Court ­– Whether High Court erred in allowing further respondents to join proceedings.

[2015] NZCA 470     CA 604/2012

Dates

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

21 December 2015
HC judgment

HAYES v FAMILY COURT HC GIS CIV 2012-416-82     16 August 2012

Judgment appealed from

M HAYES V FAMILY COURT [2015] NZCA 470 [2 October 2015]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

M HAYES v FAMILY COURT [2015] NZSC 201    21 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 121/2015   

Case Name

Riley Campbell v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Whether the applicant’s interview with police was admissible – Whether cross-examination of the complainant on sexual matters should have been allowed

[2014] NZCA 376     CA 378/2014

[2015] NZCA 452   CA 605/2014
Dates
Judgment appealed from

CAMPBELL V R [2015] NZCA 452   1 October 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed RILEY CAMPBELL v R [2015] NZSC 197    17 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 120/2015   

Case Name

Anaru Morgan v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal from the High Court – Propensity evidence – Whether the evidence is properly admissible under s 43 of the Evidence Act 2006.  

[2015] NZCA 465     CA 405/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

24 November 2015
Judgment appealed from

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v MORGAN [2015] NZCA 465   29 September 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 Not electronically available    _will

 

 

Case Number

SC 119/2015   

Case Name

R v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted – Whether directions from the trial Judge were sufficient to cure the risk of unfairly prejudicial evidence affecting the jury’s verdicts.

[2015] NZCA 394     CA 477/2014

Dates
Judgment appealed from 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed 

 

Case Number

SC 118/2015   

Case Name

N v M and others

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether the High Court judgment was invalid for want of jurisdiction –Whether the High Court Judge should have recused himself.

[2015] NZHC 1496  Civ 2013 – 404 -75

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

3 December 2015

Judgment appealed from

 N v M [2015] NZHC 1496 not available

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 N v M [2015] NZSC 185   3 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 117/2015   

Case Name

Michael John Penman v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 25 and 27 – Whether defence counsel failed to adequately follow instructions. 

[2015] NZCA 364   CA 253/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                        

28 July 2016

Judgment appealed from

PENMAN v R CA253/2014 [2015] NZCA 364    11 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MICHAEL JOHN PENMAN v R [2016] NZSC 96     28 July 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 116/2015   

Case Name

Jetstar Airways Limited v Richard Greenslade

Summary

Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 69ZH(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act.

[2015] NZCA 432  CA 125/2014

Dates
Employment Court judgment

ROBERT RICHARD GREENSLADE v JETSTAR AIRWAYS LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014]  NZEmpC 23  14 February

Judgment appealed from

JETSTAR AIRWAYS LIMITED v GREENSLADE [2015] NZCA 432  11 September 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed JETSTAR AIRWAYS LIMITED v RICHARD GREENSLADE [2015] NZSC 187   4 December 2015

 

Case Number

SC 115/2015   

Case Name

Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Whether a tailored demeanour direction should have been given at trial – Whether evidence of breach of a police safety order was admissible as propensity evidence and whether a “proper use” direction was required in respect of that evidence

[2015] NZCA 434   CA 597/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].

B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:

-no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and

-evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.

 18 December 2015

Hearing

7 June 2016

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

Result

The appeal is dismissed.                                                           

8 September 2016

Judgment appealed from

TANIWHA v R [2015] NZCA 434    11 September 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA v R [2015] NZSC 200  18 December 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release

LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA v R [2016] NZSC 123  8 September 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 114/2015   

Case Name

Douglas Banks and Christine Sandra Banks v Grey District Council

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a document sought to be discovered by the applicants was legally privileged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the leases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants had failed to discharge the evidential burden as to fraudulent misrepresentation. 

[2015] NZCA 417   CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.

28 October 2015.

__

The application for recall is dismissed.

11 November 2015.

HC judgment

GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL v BANKS [2013] NZHC 1485   19 June 2013

Judgment appealed from

BANKS AND BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 417  8 September 2015

Application for leave - leave dismissed

DOUGLAS BANKS AND CHRISTINE SANDRA BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZSC 158  28 October 2015

Application for recall - recall dismissed

DOUGLAS BANKS AND CHRISTINE SANDRA BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZSC 172   11 November 2015

Application for recall - recall dismissed

DOUGLAS BANKS AND CHRISTINE SANDRA BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZSC 183  1 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 113/2015   

Case Name

RJG v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a pre-trial ruling as to evidence.

[2015] NZCA 462   CA 506/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

30 October 2015                                                                                  __

 

 

Case Number

SC 112/2015   

Case Name

G v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 340 – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that joinder of two sets of charges by two different complainants would not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

[2015] NZCA 323   CA 149/2015

Dates

A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.

B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

21 October 2015                                                       __

 

 

Case Number

SC 111/2015   

Case Name

Michael Kinlim Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court failed to adopt the correct test for bias in respect of dismissal from the Public Service.

[2015] NZEmpC 36    ARC 11/14

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

9 November 2015

Employment Court judgment

MICHAEL KINLIM YAN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015]  NZEmpC 36   24 March 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MICHAEL KINLIM YAN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 170  9 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 110/2015   

Case Name

Friedrich Joachim Fehling v Douglas John Appleby

Summary

Civil Appeal – Appeal against decision of the High Court – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 6, 27 – Human Rights Act 1993, ss 65, 66, 105 – Whether High Court erred in its interpretation of the Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act.

[2015] NZHC 75    CIV 2014 418  21

Dates

 

Human Rights Review Tribunal decision

Fehling v Appleby [2014] NZHRRT 24 (9 June 2014)

Judgment appealed from

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75   5 February 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed FRIEDRICH JOACHIM FEHLING v DOUGLAS JOHN APPLEBY [2015] NZSC 178  23 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 109/2015   

Case Name

Lindsay James Trevor Smallbone v George Paul London, Ian Neville Wishart, Howling at the Moon Publishing Limited, Paulette Merle London

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court was correct to recall the original judgment issued post verdict in a civil jury trial for defamation – Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order a retrial post verdict – Whether new evidence justified ordering a retrial.

[2015] NZCA 391   CA 324/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first and fourth respondents.

17 December 2015

HC judgment

Smallbone v London [2014] NZHC 832 not available

Judgment appealed from

SMALLBONE v LONDON & ORS CA324/2014  [2015] NZCA 391  26 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed LINDSAY JAMES TREVOR SMALLBONE v GEORGE PAUL LONDON [2015] NZSC 192  17 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 108/2015   

Case Name

Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and  Body Corporate 341188 and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. 

[2015] NZCA 393   CA 185/2014

Dates

A  Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).

B  The approved ground is:

Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?

C  We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.

10 December 2015
Hearing

28 June 2016

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

Result

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.                          

20 December 2016

High Court judgment
Judgment appealed from

BODY CORPORATE 341188 v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZCA 393  26 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave approved

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZSC 188    10 December 2015

Substantive judgment - Media release

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZSC 167      20 December 2016

 

Case Number

SC 107/2015   

Case Name

Mobil Oil New Zealand  Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)

Summary

Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. 

[2015] NZCA 390    CA 111/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).

B The approved questions are:

Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland Waterfront

Development Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?

If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?

If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?

20 November 2015

Hearing

19 April 2016

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

Result

A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored. 

B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.


20 July 2016

HC judgment

AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 84 [7 February 2014]

Judgment appealed from

AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA111/2014 [2015] NZCA 390  25 August 2015]

Leave judgment - leave granted

MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177  20 November 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release

MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2016] NZSC 89   20 July 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 106/2015   

Case Name

A v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the defendant was not deprived of his defence at trial ­– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

[2015] NZCA 377    CA 37/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

17 December 2015

Application for recall is dismissed.

23 March 2016

Judgment appealed from

A (CA37/2014) v R [2015] NZCA 377   17 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

A (SC 106/2015) v R [2015] NZSC 191  17 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 105/2015   

Case Name

Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and Marion Ngaire Creser (as Trustees and Executors of the estate of Jesse Joy Creser)

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to accept the applicant’s documents for filing. 

[2015] NZCA 416     CA 105/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

18 December 2015

 ___

The recall application is dismissed.
10 February 2016
__
The application for the recall of the judgment of 10 February 2016 is dismissed.
14 March 2016 (direction)

___

A  The recall application is dismissed.

B  We direct the Registrar to refuse to accept any applications involving challenges to:

(1) the judgment of Harrison J in Creser v Creser [2015] NZCA 416;

(2) our decisions of 18 December 2015, 10 February 2016 and 10 March 2016;

(3) this judgment; and

(4) any future decision of the Registrar refusing to accept such applications.

6 April 2016

Judgment appealed from 

CRESER v CRESER [2015] NZCA 416     4 September 2015    

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RICHARD JOHN CRESER v JANINE MICHELLE CRESER AND MARION NGAIRE CRESER (AS
TRUSTEES AND EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JESSE JOY CRESER) [2015] NZSC 194   18 December 2015

Recall judgment - recall dismissed
Recall judgment - recall dismissed

 

 

Case Number

SC 104/2015   

Case Name

Greenshell New Zealand Limited (in receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to exercise its discretion to grant relief from forfeiture of the deeds of lease and licence between the respondent and the applicant. 

[2015] NZCA 374   CA 3962014

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted (Greenshell New Zealand Ltd (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZCA 374).

B Leave to cross-appeal is also granted.

C The approved grounds are:

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find there was jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture of its rights under the deed of lease and deed of sub‑licence?

If so, did the Court of Appeal err in declining to grant such relief?

24 November 2015

Hearing

12 April 2016

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

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

15 February 2016

HC judgment

GREENSHELL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v TIKAPA MOANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1474   27 June 2014

Judgment appealed from

GREENSHELL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V KENNEDY BAY MUSSEL COMPANY (NZ) LIMITED [2015] NZCA 374    17 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

GREENSHELL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v KENNEDY BAY MUSSEL COMPANY  (NZ) LIMITED [2015] NZSC 180   24 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 103/2015   

Case Name

David Owen Crequer v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s application to review the Deputy Registrar’s refusal to waive the filing fee for an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[2015] NZCA 365   CA 414/2015

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

18 November 2015
HC judgment

CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 1602 9 July 2015

Judgment appealed from

CREQUER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA414/2015 [2015] NZCA 365     11 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

DAVID OWEN CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 176   18 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 102/2015   

Case Name

Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven 

Summary

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

[2015] NZCA 373   CA 293/2015

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

11 November 2015

HC judgment

BURGESS v BEAVEN [2015] NZHC 790    21 April 2015

Judgment appealed from

BURGESS V BEAVEN CA293/2015 [2015] NZCA 373 14 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

GARY OWEN BURGESS v SUSAN NATALIE BEAVEN [2015] NZSC 171   11 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 101/2015   

Case Name

 Dean Michael Vincent v The Queen

Summary

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

[2015] NZCA 201  CA 870/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 February 2016
Judgment appealed from 

VINCENT v R CA870/2013 [2015] NZCA 201    27 May 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

DEAN MICHAEL VINCENT v R [2016] NZSC 15    23 February 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 100/2015   

Case Name

Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Mortgagee sale – Property Law Act 2007, s 119 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the notice issued under s 119 was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not have to specify the consequences of not remedying the default.

 [2015] NZCA 361  CA 47/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondent costs on an indemnity basis.

3 February 2016
HC judgment

TSB BANK LIMITED v BURGESS [2013] NZHC 3291  10 December 2013

Judgment appealed from 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

GARY OWEN BURGESS v TSB BANK LIMITED [2016] NZSC 2    3 February 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 99/2015   

Case Name

John Grant Cuthers  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 168(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Judge was correct not to direct that jury that they had to be unanimous as to the applicant’s knowledge.

[2015] NZCA 366   CA 186/014

Dates
Hearing
Judgment appealed from

NICHOLSON v R CA139/2014 [2015] NZCA 366   12 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed JOHN GRANT CUTHERS v R [2016] NZSC 109 [22 August 2016]

 

 

Case Number

SC 98/2015   

Case Name

Antony Fredrick Gray v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant a sentence reduction for injuries suffered while in prison on remand.

[2015] NZCA 297   CA 67/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

28 October 2015

Judgment appealed from

GRAY V R (CA67/2015) [2015] NZCA 297    10 July 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ANTONY FREDRICK GRAY v R [2015] NZSC 159   28 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 97/2015   

Case Name

Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether DNA evidence was misused at trial – Whether the trial judge’s direction as to lies was inadequate – Whether a direction under s 32 Evidence Act 2006 was required – Whether the summing up was unfair. 

[2015] NZCA 339   CA 752/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

3  November 2015
Judgment appealed from

McLAUGHLIN v R CA752/2013 [2015] NZCA 339    29 July 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

JEREMY GEORGE EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN v R [2015] NZSC 164   3 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 96/2015   

Case Name

Dion Edward Gurran v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the trial Judge’s reliability warning was sufficient for the purposes of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting leave to adduce fresh evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge adequately summarised the defence case to the jury.    

 [2015] NZCA 347   CA 412/2013

Dates
Judgment appealed from GURRAN V R CA412/2013 [2015] NZCA 347   4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed JAMIE DION EDWARD GURRAN v R [2016] NZSC 1   1 February 2016

 

Case Number

SC 95/2015   

Case Name

Bevin Hall Skelton v Daran Nair

Summary

Civil Appeal – whether Winkelmann J erred in dismissing an application to review the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to dispense with security for costs.

[2015] NZCA 343   CA 294/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

9 November 2015

Judgment appealed from

 SKELTON V NAIR CA294/2015 [2015] NZCA 343   31 July 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 BEVIN HALL SKELTON v DARAN NAIR [2015] NZSC 169 [9 November 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC 94/2015   

Case Name

Brown v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Refusal of pre-trial application to dismiss charges based on delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 322 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.

 [2015] NZCA 3215    CA 320/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 October 2015
Judgment appealed from

Brown v R [2015] NZCA 325 (Wild, Keane and Kós JJ) not available

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

BROWN (SC 94/2015) v R [2015] NZSC 148  20 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 93/2015   

Case Name

Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.

[2015] NZCA 321     CA 238/2014

Dates

A  The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).

B  The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:

(i)   The claims in negligence are arguable;

(ii)  The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and

(iii)  Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.

30 November 2015

Hearing

13 – 15 April 2016

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

Dates

A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.

C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.

D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

29 July 2016

HC judgment

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LTD [2014] NZHC 681 4 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS CA420/2013 [2015] NZCA 321  23 July 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2015] NZSC 182  30 November 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2016] NZSC 95  29 July 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 92/2015   

Case Name

Tariana Hineteangaurangi Jones v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the ground of appeal that the jury should have been directed on an alternative explanation of the facts – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

[2015] NZCA 312     CA 369/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

4 November 2015.
Judgment appealed from

JONES v R CA362/2014 [2015] NZCA 312 [20 July 2015]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

TONI MAREE MILLER v R [2015] NZSC 165   4 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 91/2015   

Case Name

Toni Maree Miller v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

[2015] NZCA 312     CA 364/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

4 November 2015
Judgment appealed from

JONES v R CA362/2014 [2015] NZCA 312 [20 July 2015]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

TONI MAREE MILLER v R [2015] NZSC 165   4 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 90/2015   

Case Name

Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal.    

[2015] NZCA 362     CA 112/2015

Dates

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

15 October 2015.

Application for recall dismissed

22 October 2015
Judgment appealed from

SAX v SIMPSON CA112/2015 [2015] NZCA 362    10 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

JANINE DAVINA SAX v LUKE ANDREW SIMPSON [2015] NZSC 144   15 October 2015

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

JANINE DAVINA SAX v LUKE ANDREW SIMPSON [2015] NZSC 152  22 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 89/2015   

Case Name

Anthony Paul Mount and Kaye Pamela Mount v Eleanor Margaretta Hannay and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred to the extent to which it upheld judgment entered into against the applicant in the High Court.

[2014] NZCA 600 CA 34/2012

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants are to pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500.

30 October 2015

Judgment appealed from

MOUNT v INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD CA39/2014 [2014] NZCA 600
8 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT AND KAYE PAMELA MOUNT v ELEANOR MARGARETTA HANNAY [2015] NZSC 162    30 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 88/2015   

Case Name

JWB v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Whether the trial Judge’s directions in relation to s 168 of the Crimes Act 1961 risked miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002.  

[2015] NZCA  306  CA 687/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

16 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 87/2015   

Case Name

Carl James Peterson v Attorney-General

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court should be granted to allow the applicant to challenge the decision in Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462 – Whether Associate Judge Christiansen’s judgment should be set aside.

 [2015] NZHC  1336   CIV 2015 463 22

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

23 October  2015

Judgment appealed from

C J PETERSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1336 [12 June 2015]

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

CARL JAMES PETERSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZSC 154    23 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 86/2015   

Case Name

M  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.

[2015] NZCA  322   CA 266/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).

B The approved question is:

“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.

27 August 2015
Hearing

18 November 2015

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

Judgment appealed from

 M v R [2015] NZCA 322

Leave judgment - leave granted

 

 

Case Number

SC 85/2015   

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted the application for an extension of time.  

CA 156/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

16 October 2015

___

Application for recall dismissed

22 October 2015

 

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND
INCORPORATED [2015] NZSC 145    16 October 2015

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND
INCORPORATED [2015] NZSC 153   22 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 84/2015   

Case Name B  v  C
Summary

Civil Appeal – Application for leave for a direct appeal from High Court – Whether the High Court erred in not declaring the proceedings as null and void due to the applicant’s diplomatic immunity – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the New Zealand Family Court is the appropriate forum in which to decide issues concerning the care and welfare of the applicant and the respondent’s children.

[2015] NZHC  1595  CIV 2014 485 11245

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The application for interim relief is dismissed.

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

16 September 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 NZLII link

 

 

Case Number

SC 83/2015   

Case Name

Shane James Old v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential issues.

[2015] NZCA  252   CA 739/2014

Dates

The application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal is granted.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

18 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 82/2015   

Case Name

Heartland Bank Limited  (formerly Marac Finance Limited )

 v  Vero Liability Insurance Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “clear intent” in crime risk insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the policy when assessing coverable loss. 

[2015] NZCA  288   CA 712/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicant to the respondent.

3 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 81/2015   

Case Name

Allianz New Zealand Limited   and HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the law of estoppel 

[2015] NZCA  283   CA 734/2013

Dates

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

18 September 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 80/2015   

Case Name

Alan Ivo Greer v Ray Smith and Jack Harrison

Summary

Civil Appeal – Habeus Corpus Act 2001 – Whether High Court correctly applied Habeus Corpus Act.   

[2014] NZHC  326  CIV 2015-412-15

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 September 2015

__

Application for recall is dismissed.

10 February 2016

Judgment appealed from 

GREER v SMITH & ANOR [2015] NZHC 326     2 March 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed ALAN GREER v RAY SMITH [2015] NZSC 136    21 September 2015
Recall judgment - recall dismissed ALAN IVO GREER v RAY SMITH [2016] NZSC 4     10 February 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 79/2015   

Case Name

Barrie James Skinner v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.

[2015] NZCA  233   CA 573/2012

Dates

Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC.

In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].

15 February 2016
Hearing

9 June 2016.

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

Decision reserved

Result

The appeals are dismissed.      

10 August 2016

Judgment appealed from

ROWLEY & SKINNER V R  [2015] NZCA 233       10 June 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7   15 February 2016
Substantive judgment - Media release BARRIE JAMES SKINNER v R [2016] NZSC 101   10 August 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 78/2015   

Case Name

HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant and second respondent were estopped  from denying that the first respondent’s interest in the relevant property was insured – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment.

Civil Appeal/Cross Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent’s first cause of action (a declaration that it was insured under the relevant insurance policy) was not appropriate for summary judgment.

[2014] NZCA  283   CA 734/2013

Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal  are deemed to be dismissed.

18 September 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 77/2015   

Case Name

Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s application to have an arbitral award set aside.

 [2014] NZCA  290    CA 130/2014 

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

21 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 76/2015   

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept for filing an application for review. 

[2014] NZCA  276    CA 31/15

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B  Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).

28 October 2015

___

Application for recall dismissed.

13 November 2015

___

2nd recall application:

No new matters raised. Application dismissed,

17 November 2015.

___

Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.

19 November 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 75/2015 

Case Name

 Tatyana Kondratyeva v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.

[2014] NZCA  266    CA6/2015

Dates
Hearing

  

Case Number

SC 74/2015   

Case Name

Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.

[2014] NZCA  253   CA830/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).

B The approved questions are:

(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal?  If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?

(b)  Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court?  If so, what is the significance of this?

(c )  What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?

(d)  Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?

11 September 2015

Hearing

8 – 10 March 2016

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

Result

A The appeal is dismissed.

B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

27 July 2016.

 

 

Case Number

SC 73/2015   

Case Name

John Gilbert Sturgess v Robert Mark Patrick Dunphy, Greymouth Holdings Limited and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 174 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to not uphold the High Court order that the applicant’s shares in the joint venture are to be sold at fair market value.

 [2015] NZCA  265   CA366/2013

Dates

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

19 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 72/2015   

Case Name

Tony Douglas Robertson v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that publication of the name and other suppressed information about the applicant would not be likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial if the appellant appeals successfully to the Court of Appeal against conviction and a new trial is ordered.

[2014] NZCA  287   CA340/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

28 July 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 71/2015   

Case Name

Dinesh Kumar Manoharan   v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial Judge had not erred in allowing certain evidence to be admitted, in particular low copy number DNA evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the verdict was not unreasonable.

[2014] NZCA  237   CA5/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

28 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 70/2015   

Case Name

F v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the complainant’s evidential video interview should have been replayed in full during jury deliberations – Whether a demeanour direction needed to be given close in time to the video’s replaying. 

 [2014] NZCA  229   CA 411/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

1 September 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 69/2015   

Case Name

Rawiri David Lawson v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant was unable to instruct counsel or present a defence – Whether the Crown’s presentation of evidence differed from the Crown’s closing – Whether propensity evidence was wrongfully admitted – Whether a charge was withdrawn too late to avoid unfair trial – Whether jury directed to speculate over matters of which there was no evidence of – Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict.

 [2014] NZCA 463  CA 397/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

6 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 68/2015   

Case Name

 Michael Shane Henry Lihou v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Application to present new evidence – Whether counsel presented proper defence at trial.  

[2015] NZCA 227  CA 646/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal pre-trial decision ([2013] NZCA 195) is dismissed.

B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal conviction decision ([2015] NZCA 227) is also dismissed.

30 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 67/2015   

Case Name

The Queen v SSC

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admissions in response to police questioning – Whether exclusion of evidence is proportionate to the police impropriety. 

[2015] NZCA 241

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted (C v R [2015] NZCA 241).

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to quash the High Court’s order that the latter part (commencing at 2.14 pm) of the interview between Mr C and the police on 28 March 2014 is admissible at his trial.

31 July 2015

Hearing

10 December 2015

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

Result

Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.                                                    

17 June 2016

 

Case Number

SC 66/2015   

Case Name

Susan Marie Heazlewood v Memorial Avenue Investments Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 42 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s notices under s 42 of the Property (Relationship) Act 1976 against the respondent’s properties were not sustainable.  

[2015] NZCA 213     SC 644/2014

Dates

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

13 August 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 65/2015   

Case Name

Robert George Keen v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing Mr Keen’s appeal against an order for forfeiture made by the District Court under s 32(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[2015] NZCA 221

Dates

Application for leave to appeal  is dismissed.

13 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 64/2015   

Case Name

Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Attorney-General and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for extension of time to appeal.

[2015] NZCA 198

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.

29 October 2015

___

The application for recall is dismissed
15 February 2016

Judgment appealed from 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment - recall dismissed

 

 

Case Number

SC 63/2015   

Case Name

 Sione Fehoko Makanesi v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant’s lawyer failed to follow instructions – Whether the applicant’s lawyer should also have appealed against conviction.

[2015] NZCA 134  CA 326/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

21 September 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 62/2015   

Case Name

Rapata Leef and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Ngāti Taka v Colin Bidois and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Pirirakau

Summary

Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding waiver of conflict – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no process breach by the Arbitration Panel.

 [2015] NZCA 176  CA 441/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

24 August 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 61/2015   

Case Name

Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial ­– whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt.  

[2015] NZCA 162  CA 58/2014

[2012] NZCA 559  CA 262/2012

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).

B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.

15 October 2015
Hearing

9  February 2016

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

Result

The appeal is dismissed.

6 July 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 60/2015   

Case Name

 D  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit expert evidence on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no miscarriage of justice due to a failure to give a reliability warning under s 122(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s propensity direction to the jury was adequate.

[2015] NZCA 171  CA 345/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

31 July 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 59/2015   

Case Name

John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791

Summary

Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.

[2015] NZCA 185  CA 213/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).

B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:

(i)  to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and

(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.

4 September 2015

Hearing

8  December 2015

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

 

 

Case Number

SC 58/2015   

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was inconsistent with Reekie v Attorney General [2014] NZSC 63.  

[2015] NZCA 129  CA 550/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

 24 July 2015

___

The application for recall is dismissed.

4 August 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 57/2015   

Case Name

Tony Gordon Best v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. 

[2015] NZCA 159  CA 254/2014

Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.

3 November 2015

Hearing

11 February 2016

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

Result

The appeal is dismissed.                                                              

8 September 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 56/2015   

Case Name

Kenneth Angus Holmes  and others v Kiriwai Consultants Limited 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2003, s 149 – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make a finding on fact-based fiduciary duty ­– Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding existence of fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the fair value of shares.

[2015] NZCA 149  CA 201/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.  The liability of the applicants is joint and several. 

4 August 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 55/2015   

Case Name

John Frederick Ericson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Whether the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections holds a valid warrant of commitment for imprisonment in respect of the applicant.

[2015] NZCA 19  CA 241/2015
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

29 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 54/2015   

Case Name

Rapata Te Haa  Rangitukunoa v John Pieter Koning and Hiria Rewti

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. 

[2015] NZCA 24  CA 212/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

31 July 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 53/2015   

Case Name

Richard Lyall Genge v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Summary

Criminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to decline his application for habeas corpus.

[2015] NZCA 157  CA 208/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

22 June 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 52/2015   

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was in breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

 [2015] NZCA 186  CA 118/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B  The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

24 July 2015

___

The application for recall is dismissed.

 4 August 2015

  

 

Case Number

SC 51/2015   

Case Name

 Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated

Summary

 Civil Appeal – Security for costs –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Deputy Registrar making an assessment of the merits of the relevant appeal when deciding whether to dispense with security for costs was consistent with Reekie [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.

[2015] NZCA 188  CA 156/2015

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

24 July 2015

The application for recall is dismissed.

4 August 2015

  

 

Case Number

SC 50/2015   

Case Name

Antony Thomas Gough, Tracy Owen Gough and Harcourt David Gough v Gough Holdings Limited and  Gina Louise Satherthwaite and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Interpretation of clause in company constitution – Whether Court of Appeal correct in interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal correctly used extrinsic aids to interpretation.

[2015] NZCA 130   CA 380/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.

29 July 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 49/2015   

Case Name

Mohammed Munif Sahib v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted – Whether s 44 of the Evidence Act 2006 was applied correctly by the trial judge.

[2015] NZCA 112   CA 252/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

20 July 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 48/2015   

Case Name

Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether Wild J erred in dismissing the application for review of a decision of the Registrar.

[2015] NZCA 161  CA 31/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent.  Their liability is joint and several.

14 July 2015.

___

Application for recall dismissed.

13 August 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 47/2015   

Case Name

Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General 

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.

[2015] NZCA 160  CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015

Dates

An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.

14 May 2015

___

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).

B  The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:

(a)   the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;

(b)   the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;

 (c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.

C   The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.

D  The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.

27 May 2015.

Hearing

17, 18 and 19 August 2015.

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

 

Case Number

 SC 46/2015  

Case Name

Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and The Official Assignee

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether Cooper J erred in dismissing the application under appeal without a hearing.

[2015] NZHC 709  CIV 2015-485-60

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B  There is no order for costs.

16 July 2015

___

Application for recall is dismissed.

21 July 2015.

___

Second application for recall is dismissed.

22 July 2015.

___

A The application for recall is dismissed.

B  The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall.

29 July 2015

___

The application for review of Glazebrook J’s decision is dismissed.

19 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 45/2015  

Case Name

Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.

[2015] NZCA 122    CA 5/2014

Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.

 8 October 2015 

  

 

Case Number

 

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Special leave to appeal – Judicial Review – Review of Registrar’s decision not to provide copies of applications for leave to appeal – Whether High Court correct to strike out application.

[2015] NZHC 709  CIV 2015-485-60

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

13 July 2015. 

 

 

Case Number

 SC 43/2015 

Case Name

Phillip Wiki Taha v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether new evidence not led at trial is “fresh” and cogent.

[2015] NZCA 107  CA 405/2014

Dates

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

16 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

 SC 42/2015 

Case Name

P v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the conduct of the trial prosecutor did not amount to a miscarriage of justice

[2015] NZCA 96  CA 672/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

24 June 2015.

 

 

Case Number

 SC 41/2015 

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Ailsa Duffy

Summary

Civil Appeal – whether Brown J erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review.

[2015] NZHC 714 CIV  2014 485 11404

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

1 July 2015.

 

 

Case Number

 SC 40/2015 

Case Name

Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission

Summary

Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. 

 [2015] NZCA  78  CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014

Dates

A   The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).

B   The approved question is:

Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?

2 July 2015

Hearing

10 and 11 November 2015

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

Decision reserved.

Result

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

12 May 2016

 

 

Case Number

 SC 39/2015 

Case Name

Ronald Peter Rosenberg v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentencing Judge properly considered the amends made by the applicant since conviction, whether a reparation order of $400,000 was justified and whether there was a significant inconsistency between the sentence of the applicant and the co-offender.

[2015] NZCA 97  CA 345/2014
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 July 2015. 

 

 

Case Number

 SC 38/2015 

Case Name

Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.

[2015] NZCA  30  CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014

Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

If so:

Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?

If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?

C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:

Section 44C of the PRA?

Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?

18 June 2015.

Hearing

1, 2 and 8 September 2015

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

Decision reserved.

Result

A The appeal is allowed.

B There is no order of costs.

23 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

 SC 37/2015 

Case Name

RSS  v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to acquit the applicant. 

[2015] NZCA 33  CA 573/2014

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B  Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

14 July 2015. 

 

 

Case Number

 SC 36/2015 

Case Name

 Peter Bonfert v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Whether factual findings by Court of Appeal correct.  

[2012] NZCA 313  CA 26/2012: CA 124/2012

Dates

The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

25 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 35/2015 

Case Name

 R  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.

 [2013] NZCA 542 CA 151/2013

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

24 February 2016 

 

 

Case Number

 SC 34/2015 

Case Name

 Suisse International Limited v Beverley Jean Monk

Summary

 [2015] NZCA 46  CA 279/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid to the respondent.  The applicant and Mr Reginald Watt are jointly and severally liable for these costs.

10 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 33/2015 

Case Name

Jolene Keane v The Queen 

Summary

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

 [2015] NZCA 31 CA 446/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

22 June 2015. 

 

 

Case Number

 SC 32/2015 

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Review by a Judge of the Court of Appeal of a decision of the Deputy Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs for an appeal to that Court.

Minute 26 March 2015 CA 693/2014

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B  We make no award of costs.

15 May 2015

__

The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Siemer v O’Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 64 is dismissed.

26 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 31/2015 

Case Name

Vincent Ross  Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Review by a Judge of the Court of Appeal of a decision of the Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal to that Court.

[2015] NZCA 69   CA 31/2015

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent.  Their liability is joint and several.

15 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 30/2015 

Case Name

Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Ross Winston Blackwell  v Leith Roger Chick and Rosemary Chick and Edmonds Judd

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ lack of mental capacity and unconscionable bargain defences in CA 481/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity in CA 476/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there was no causation as to the lawyer’s negligent advice and the loss suffered by the deceased.

[2015] NZCA 35  CA 481/2013; CA 476/2013

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal in CA 481/2013 is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.

C  The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.

D  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.

19 June 2015

Hearing

2 February 2016

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

Result

A The appeal is allowed.  Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.                                       
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.   
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.                                                      
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside.  Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.                             

22 April 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 29/2015

Case Name Janine  Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson
Summary

Civil Appeal – whether Cooper J erred in declining to grant suppression.

CA 112/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 May 2015.

 

 

Case Number

SC 28/2015 

Case Name

Bruce Brendon van Essen and Jason Patterson v The Attorney-General and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Unreasonable Search and Seizure under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ­– Whether Court of Appeal applied correct test for public law remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied principles in Taunoa v Attorney General – Whether Court of Appeal correct in reliance on Independent Police Conduct Authority reports as a basis for assessing NZBORA compensation – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding there was a proper basis for obtaining and executing search warrants – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding that s 27 Crimes Act 1961 conferred immunity on defendants.

[2015] NZCA 22  CA 320/2013; CA 339/2013; CA 593/2013; CA 594/2013

Dates

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:

the first respondent, and  the second and third respondents jointly.

 13 July 2015. 

__

Reissued 3 November 2015.

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  There is no order as to costs.

We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.

15 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 27/2015 

Case Name

Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility

Summary

Civil Appeal – Application for Habeas Corpus – Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the subject of a request for extradition, if found eligible to surrender, is to be detained in custody – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Extradition Act.

[2015] NZCA 2  CA 17/2015

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

23 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 26/2015 

Case Name

SK v The Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment

Summary

Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009 – Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the applicant’s application for leave to bring review proceedings in the High Court against the Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s refugee status determination.

[2015] NZCA 26  CA 694/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the second respondent.

24 June 2015.

 

 

Case Number

 SC 25/2015 

Case Name

Kensington Developments Limited (in receivership) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to transfer taxation challenge proceedings from the Taxation Review Authority to the High Court.

[2015] NZCA 60  CA 64/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

4 June 2015.

 

 

Case Number

 SC 24/2015 

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether Judge correct to find imposition of security for costs lawful – Whether Judge correct to find ground of appeal on grant of standing to be hopeless and vexatious ­– Whether Judge correct to order security for costs.

[2015] NZCA 86  CA 693/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

15 May 2015 

The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Siemer v O’Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 63 is dismissed.

26 June 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 23/2015 

Case Name

Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.

[2015] NZCA  30  CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014

Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

If so:

Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?

If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?

C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:

Section 44C of the PRA?

Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?

18 June 2015

Hearing

1, 2 and 8 September 2015

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

Result A The appeal is allowed in part.

B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.

C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.

D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust).  We decline to make a ruling on that issue.

E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.

F We make no award of costs

23 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

 SC 22/2015 

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review.

 [2015] NZHC 334    CIV 2014-485-10920

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.

8 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 21/2015 

Case Name

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court,  Ministry of Justice and The Attorney-General

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s statement of claim.

 [2015] NZHC 403    CIV 2014-485-11155

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 May 2015.

 

Case Number

 SC 20/2015 

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil appeal – whether High Court erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for judicial review and a stay of proceedings.

[2015] NZCA 68    CA 550/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,500 to the respondents.

12 May 2015.

 

 

Case Number

 SC 19/2015 

Case Name

Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society

Summary

Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court was correct to adjourn the applicant’s judicial review application pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.

[2015] NZCA 12    CA 121/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs to the respondent $2,500.

2 June 2015.

Application for recall dismissed.

14 July 2015.

 

 

Case Number

 SC 18/2015

Case Name

Rikki Leigh Scott-Ngatai-Check v The Queen

Summary Criminal Appeal – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal placed insufficient weight on the prejudicial effect of the expert’s opinion evidence.

[2011] NZCA 543    CA 175/2011

Dates

An extension of time to make the application for leave to appeal is granted but that application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

24 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 17/2015

Case Name

Taylor Jade Schmidt v Noel Robert Hair

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that no cause of action for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment was open to the applicant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential questions.

[2015] NZCA 6  CA 794/2011

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs to the respondent of $2,500.00

17 April 2015

Judgment appealed from

SCHMIDT V EBADA PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED CA794/2011 [2015] NZCA 6    3 February 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

TAYLOR JADE SCHMIDT v NOEL ROBERT HAIR [2015] NZSC 40    17 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 16/2015

Case Name

B v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether District Court erred in ordering detention as special patient – Whether Court of Appeal erred in findings on instructions to trial counsel.

[2014] NZCA 212    CA 627/2013

Dates

A  An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.

B  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

15 May 2015

Judgment appealed from

B v R [2014] NZCA 212 (White, Ronald Young and Simon France JJ) [B (CA)] not available

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

B v R [2015] NZSC 66    15 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 15/2015

Case Name

Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police

Summary

Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.

[2015] NZCA 8    CA 669/2014

Dates

 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

 23 April 2015.

Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ V THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA669/2014 [2015] NZCA 8     5 February 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZSC 46     23 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 14/2015

Case Name

Colin James Dallas v Wellington City Council

Summary

Civil Appeal – Fair Trading Act 1986, s 9 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act.

[2014] NZCA 631    CA 148/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Wellington City Council v Dallas [2014] NZCA 631).

B  The approved questions are:

(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to have found the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986?

(b) If so, should the applicant have been held liable for 50 per cent of the respondent’s loss?

26 June 2015 

Hearing

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

11 November 2015

Judgment appealed from

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL v DALLAS CA148/2014 [2014] NZCA 631 [19 December 2014]

 

 

Case Number

 SC 13/2015

Case Name

Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.
[2014] NZCA 628    CA 436/2012

Dates

A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.

B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.

C The approved grounds are:

Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu?

If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time?

If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown?

If so, what relief is appropriate?

Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014?

D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.

8 May 2015

Hearing

12 – 15 October 2015

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

Judgment appealed from

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATŪ v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA436/2012 [2014] NZCA 628     19 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATŪ & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZSC 54  8 May 2015

 

Case Number

 SC 12/2015

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of decisions of the Deputy Registrar – Whether the decision to dismiss the application was affected by apparent bias or a breach of the principles of natural justice.

[2015] NZCA 5    CA 550/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,500 to the respondents.

12 May 2015.

Judgment appealed from

RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT CA550/2014 [2015] NZCA 5     30 January 2015

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 58     12 May  2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 11/2015

Case Name

Western Park Village Limited, Darryll Lawrenece Heaven, Anne Evelyn Heaven and Trustee Management Limited

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract by allowing the respondent to be paid in New Zealand dollars – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the contract’s penalty interest provision.

[2014] NZCA 6340   CA 115/2014

Dates

 A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

 14 May 2015

HC judgment

WESTERN PARK VILLAGE LIMITED v BAHO [2014] NZHC 198   10 February 2014

Judgment appealed from

WESTERN PARK VILLAGE LIMITED v BAHO CA115/2014 [2014] NZCA 630   19 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed WESTERN PARK VILLAGE LTD & ORS v SINAN ABED BAHO [2015] NZSC 60   14 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 10/2015

Case Name

Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Summary

Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’s intention to resume living in New Zealand.

[2014] NZCA 611    CA 351/2014

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611).

The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.

11 May 2015.

Hearing

20 August 2015.

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

Result

Appeal dismissed.

No order as to costs.

24September 2015.

__

Application for recall dismissed

27 October 2015

NZSSA decision

An appeal against a decision of the Benefits Review Committee [2013] NZSSAA 14 (18 February 2013)

Judgment appealed from

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v GREENFIELD CA351/2014    [2014] NZCA 611   12 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 57    11 May 2015
Substantive judgment / Media release DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 139    24 September 2015
Recall judgment - recall dismissed

DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 155    27 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 9/2015

Case Name

Rebel Waitohi v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive.

[2014] NZCA 614    CA 429/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

22 April 2015. 

HC judgment

R v WAITOHI [2014] NZHC 1018     15 May 2014

Judgment appealed from

WAITOHI v R CA429/2014 [2014] NZCA 614   15 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

REBEL WAITOHI v R [2015] NZSC 43    22 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 8/2015

Case Name

Vincent Ross  Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the High Court incorrectly applied test for apprehended bias – Whether the High Court provided counsel with opportunity to be heard – Whether there was an inordinate delay of judgment – Whether the High Court made factual findings contrary to uncontested evidence – Whether the Judge was required to disqualify himself under Section F(1) of the New Zealand Guidelines for Judicial Conduct – Whether there was a breach of natural justice.

[2014] NZHC 3175  Civ 2008 044 517

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 April 2015. 

Application for recall dismissed.

5 May 2015.

Judgment appealed from

SIEMER & ORS v BROWN & ORS [2014] NZHC 3175   11 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND JANE DINSDALE SIEMER v KEVIN STANLEY BROWN [2015] NZSC 41  20 April 2015

Application for recall - recall dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND JANE DINSDALE SIEMER v KEVIN STANLEY BROWN [2015] NZSC 50     5 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 7/2015

Case Name

Ioane Teitiota v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 245 – Whether the word “Refugee” constitutes and incorporates those who are refugees by way of climate change – Whether the Tribunal erred in its finding that because all people in Kiribati suffer the same results of global warming, that this disqualifies the application from claiming refugee status – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider indirect human agency – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant international law relevant to the welfare of the applicant’s children – Whether the tribunal erred in failing to consider the children of the applicant separately – Whether the Tribunal erred when it made a finding of fact that the applicant’s supplies of food and water were adequate.

[2014] NZCA 173  CA  50/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.

B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

C There is no order for costs.

20 July 2015

Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision

AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413 [Tribunal decision]

HC judgment

TEITIOTA v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND
EMPLOYMENT [2013] NZHC 3125    26 November 2013

Judgment appealed from

TEITIOTA V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND
EMPLOYMENT CA50/2014 [2014] NZCA 173    8 May 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

IOANE TEITIOTA v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2015] NZSC 107    20 July 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 6/2015

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the Chambers Order of White J contravened rights of appeal expressly provided by s 40(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 –Whether the Chambers Order was issued without notice and did not address the obvious merit of the appeal.

[2014] NZCA 318/2014

Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

17 April 2015. 

Application for recall dismissed.

5 May 2015.

Judgment appealed from

Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court CA318/2014, direction of White J 10 December 2014  -not available

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 39   17 April 2015

Recall judgment - recall dismissed

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 52   5 May 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 5/2015

Case Name

Maree Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation  

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 defer payment of security for costs.                                                         


[2014] NZCA 627 CA  618/2014

Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.

11 March 2015.

Application for recall dismissed.

28 April 2015.

Judgment appealed from

HOWARD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA618/2014 [2014] NZCA 627     18 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

MAREE HOWARD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZSC 25  11 March 2015

Recall judgment - recall dismissed MAREE HOWARD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZSC 48   28 April 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 4/2015

Case Name

 Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen  

Summary

Criminal Appeal – “Red Devils” case – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction – Whether a stay should have been granted.   

[2014] NZCA 584 CA   725/2012

Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved questions are:

 Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if not

Does this warrant the quashing of the convictions?

26 May 2015

Hearing

7 July 2015

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


Result

Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.

14 December 2015

Judgment appealed from

WILSON v R CA725/2012 [2014] NZCA 584   1 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted TREVOR JOHN MOMO WILSON v R [2015] NZSC 71  26 May 2015
Substantive judgment / Media release TREVOR JOHN MOMO WILSON v R [2015] NZSC 189   14 December 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 3/2015  

Case Name

NR v MR and others 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment was in breach of the principles of natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the debarment application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the disclosure application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its award of costs.

[2014] NZCA 623 CA  443/2014, CA 456/2014, CA 522/3014, CA 532/2014.

Dates

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 dismissed

N v M [2015] NZSC 15     27 February 2015

 

 

Case Number

SC 2/2015  

Case Name

Walter Fitikefu v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

[2014] NZCA 99  CA  356/2013

Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 March 2015.

HC judgment

R V FITIKEFU HC AK CRI-2010-004-017106 5 July 2011

Judgment appealed from

 FITIKEFU v R CA356/2013 [2014] NZCA 99   27 March 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

 WALTER FITIKEFU v R [2015] NZSC 22    10 March 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 1/2015

Case Name

 K  v  Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Summary

Civil Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly consider the evidence in breach of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied ss 130 and 131 of the Immigration Act 2009 – Whether it was incorrect to dismiss the proceedings on a summary basis.

[2014] NZCA 585 CA  500/214

      
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

14 May 2015.

HC judgment

K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 1800  1 August 2014

Judgment appealed from

K V IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL CA500/2014 [2014] NZCA 585  2 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave dismissed

K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2015] NZSC 61 [14 May 2015]