Case information 2017

Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.

2 May 2017

8 August 2017

Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

Decision reserved

ROOSE v DUTHIE [2016] NZCA 600 15 December 2016

DUTHIE AND TAYLOR-RUITERMAN v DENISE MICHELLE ROOSE [2017] NZSC 57 2 May 2017

Mark David Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Civil Appeal – Public Safety (Public Protections Orders) Act 2014, s 8 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the formulation of a threshold test for the granting of a public protection orders.  

A Leave to appeal is granted (Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 620).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017

______________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August  2017             

Hearing date : 22 June 2017                                                                      
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington

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.

A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017

5 October 2017                                                                      
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.

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

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

Wellington International Airport Limited v New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated and Director of Civil Aviation

Civil Appeal – Civil Aviation Rules, Part 139 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the term “practicable” in Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the matters that the Director of Civil Aviation may take into account.

A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Ltd [2017] NZCA 27).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.

16 May 2017

Hearing date : 24 and 25 August 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Arnold JJ
Decision reserved

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED V DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION [2017] NZCA 27 28 February 2017

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND AIRLINE PILOTSʼ
ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 70  16 May 2017

Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill City Council 

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no duty of care was owed by the Invercargill City Council to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of limitation and contributory negligence principles

30 May 2017

Hearing date : 10 August 2017                                                                                                      

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

Decision reserved

SOUTHLAND INDOOR LEISURE CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1983   20 August 2015

S v The Queen

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether cross examination of witnesses was adequate. 

F v The Queen

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

Earl Raymond Hagaman v Andrew James Little

Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to claim the defence of qualified privilege in relation to allegedly defamatory statements made by him about the applicant – Whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.  

Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia

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. 

A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B 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.
18 August 2017

Hearing date 11 October 2017

Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Asjo Oyang Corporation

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.

Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
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.                                                                                

9 August 2017

Hartono v The Ministry for Primary Industries [2015] NZHC 3307

Eli Devoy v The Queen

Criminal Appeal – Whether the High Court Judge erred in imposing a minimum period of imprisonment of at least one half of the sentence of five years’ imprisonment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the conviction appeal. 

The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemani Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp

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.

A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of  inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.                                                                                

30 August 2017 

Akuhatua Tihi v The Queen

W v The Queen 

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions as to belief in consent were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the youth discount applied to the applicant’s sentencing was sufficient 

W v The Queen

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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.  

not publicly available 

not publicly available

C v The Queen

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding a pre-trial ruling that evidence of sexual experience was not admissible. 

(not publicly available)

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the jury’s verdict at the applicant’s trial was not unreasonable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge did not need to give a specific direction on drawing inferences.

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a High Court decision to enforce a foreign judgment for child and spousal maintenance

Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(1) – Whether errors in the charging document relating to the applicant meant that he was convicted of conduct that did not constitute an offence at the time it occurred

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a decision of the High Court declining the applicants’ application for relief against forfeiture of a lease. 

Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, ss 35, 120 and 232 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second and third respondents were entitled to enforce copyright in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant infringed copyright by importation.

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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. 

31 August 2017

not publicly available 

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

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 20 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996.

Criminal Appeal – Whether the claimed failure of trial counsel and counsel in the Court of Appeal to pursue certain arguments amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the directors’ conduct amounted to breach of the duties imposed by ss 135 (reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care). 

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s decision putting Chesterfields Preschools Ltd into liquidation.              

 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was moot and that separate leave to appeal the High Court cost awards was required.

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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.