Case information 2019

R (SC 1/2019) V The Queen

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

Hearing date 14 May 2019

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (R (CA158/2018) v R [2018] NZCA 529.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
21 February 2019

_________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
16 August 2019

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.  

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 136 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the Respondent’s actions as a director under ss 131 and 135 of the Companies Act 1993.   

1 October 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ

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.  

Criminal Appeal – Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, s 9 – Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 9 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the order that the applicant be placed on the child sex offender register. 

30 October 2019

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

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s application to trademark of the word ZIPLOC to proceed to registration – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.  

20 February 2020

Not publicly available

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.  

19 August 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ

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.  

19 August 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ

Civil Appeal – Penalty clause – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties. 

Hearing date 10 October 2019

Winkelmann CJ,  O'Regan, Ellen France,Williams and Arnold JJ

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand, particularly in relation to the Applicant’s prior convictions. 

25 September 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Williams JJ

Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from risks of contamination of or improperly obtained complainant evidence - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from lack of expert evidence on the reliability of children complainants’ evidence – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to unreliable expert evidence being led at trial. 

14 November 2019 (Hearing to determine whether there is jurisdiction for appeal to proceed)

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ

Civil – Property Law Act 2007, s 317 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal and declining to modify covenants burdening land owned by the appellant. 

21 October 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ

STONEHILL TRUSTEE LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2938 [13 November 2018]

STONEHILL TRUSTEE LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3436 [20 December 2018]

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not setting aside the recommendations of the respondents in a judicial review claim having regard to all circumstances including the gravity of the respondent’s error and prejudice to the applicant. 

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2018] NZHC 459 [19 March 2018]

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.  

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing and remitting the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender the respondent for extradition to the People’s Republic of China – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding there is a preliminary question of whether diplomatic assurances as to criminal justice rights should be accepted given the general human rights situation in a receiving state – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting the legal test to determine whether the respondent’s fair trial rights would be upheld.  

4 December 2019

William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and French JJ

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 remains in force. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.   

Criminal Appeal – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal from the High Court – Whether the High Court erred in upholding the District Court’s refusal to grant a discharge without conviction. 

Civil Appeal – Contract law – Interest rate swaps – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bank made a particular representation despite a factual finding in the High Court to the contrary – Whether the Court erred in holding that various representations made by the bank were undertakings forming part of the contract between the parties – Whether the Court erred in holding that the bank breached its undertaking to monitor and advise Bushline – Whether the Court erred in holding that it was not fair and reasonable, per s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, for various disclaimer clauses to preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that various exclusion clauses do not preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that two of Bushline’s misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were not time barred under the Limitations Act 1950. 

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.   

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.                                                                                                  

16 August 2019

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.   

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.

16 August 2019

 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.

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.