Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Upcoming cases - Supreme Court

As at 22 September 2017

Sittings of the Supreme Court are open to the public.

Upcoming fixtures are set out below.

Note information is added as it becomes available.

Fixture list for September 2017 (PDF, 205 KB)

Fixture list for October 2017 (PDF, 74.5 KB)

Fixture list for November 2017 (PDF, 67.5 KB)

       

 

 

September 2017

 

October 2017

Date of hearing 3 October 2017
Case

SC 136/2016
Glenn Roderick Holland (Other Suppression Orders)
W C Pyke
v
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
C A Brook and R K Thomson
Criminal Appeal

Judges

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

Case Summary

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.

Grounds on which leave was granted (a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and

(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
Supreme Court leave application decision GLENN RODERICK HOLLAND v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 86 [8 June 2017]
Court of Appeal decision HOLLAND v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 504
District Court decision not publicly available

 

 

Date of hearing 5 October 2017
Case SC 23/2017
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse
K N Hampton QC and S Meikle
v
Worksafe New Zealand
A L Martin and E N Lay

District Court at Wellington
K Laurenson
Civil Appeal
Judges

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

Case Summary

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.

Grounds on which leave was granted

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.

Supreme Court leave application decision

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

Court of Appeal decision

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

High Court decision

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

 

 

Date of hearing 11 October 2017
Case SC 57/2017
Maythem Kamil Radhi (Other Suppression Orders)
R M Mansfield
v
The District Court at Manakau
D L Harris (Abiding)

The Commonwealth of Australia M J Lillico
Civil Appeal
Judges

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

Case Summary

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.

Grounds on which leave was granted

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.

Supreme Court leave application decision

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

Court of Appeal decision

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

High Court decision

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

 

November 2017

Date of hearing 14 November 2017
Case SC 61/2017
Rudi Hartono and others
K Harding
v
Ministry for Primary Industries
C J Lange

Sajo Oyang Corporation
F M R Cooke QC and M S Sullivan
Civil Appeal
Judges

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

Case Summary

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.

Grounds on which leave was granted

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.

Supreme Court leave application decision

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

Court of Appeal decision

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

High Court decision

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

 

 

Date of hearing 16 and 17 November 2017
Case SC 141/2016
New Health New Zealand Incorporated
M T Scholtens QC
v
South Taranaki District Council
D J S Laing

Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Minister of Health
U Jagose QC and AM Powell

Civil Appeal
Judges

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

Case Summary

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.

Grounds on which leave was granted

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.

Supreme Court leave application decision

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

Court of Appeal decision

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

High Court decision

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

 

 

Date of hearing 21 and 22 November 2017
Case SC 65/2017
Attorney General
U Jagose QC , P T Rishworth and D Perkins
v
Arthur William Taylor

In person

Hinemanu Ngaronoa and others
R K Francois

Human Rights Commissioner (Intervener )
A S Butler and M W McMenamin

Civil Appeal
Judges

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

Case Summary

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.

Grounds on which leave was granted

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

Supreme Court leave application decision

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

Court of Appeal decision

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

High Court decision

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