Upcoming cases - Supreme Court

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

Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, pt 1A – Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Parole Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the gravity of the offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the length of the extended supervision order was proportionate to the risk posed by the defendant.

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

Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.

Subject to the qualification discussed at [1] in leave judgment, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.

OSBORNE AND ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZSC 90 [19 June 2017]

OSBORNE & ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZCA 11 [16 February 2017]

OSBORNE & OR v WORKSAFE NZ & OR [2015] NZHC 2991 [27 November 2015]

Justice William Young, Justice Glazebrook, Justice O'Regan, Justice Ellen France, Justice McGrath

Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.

MAYTHEM KAMIL RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2017] NZSC 123 [18 August 2017]

RADHI v DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2017] NZCA 157 [3 May 2017]

RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU & ANOR [2015] NZHC 3347 [21 December 2015]

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

Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.

The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

RUDI HARTONO AND OTHERS v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZSC 117 [9 August 2017]

SAJO OYANG CORP v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZCA 182 [15 May 2017]

HARTONO v THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2015] NZHC 3307 [18 December 2015 reissued 22 February 2016]

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

Civil Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to the fluoridation of water supplies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding an appeal was moot – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Medicines Amendment Regulations 2015.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 13 [20 February 2017]

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZCA 462 [27 September 2016]

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 2138 [4 September 2015]

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

Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.

The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2017] NZSC 131 [30 August 2017]

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TAYLOR & ORS [2017] NZCA 215 [26 May 2017]

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 1706 [24 July 2015]