Case information 2018

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Forests Act 1949 and the Protected Objects Act 1975. 

A Leave to appeal is granted (Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 607).
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018

___________________________

A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018

Hearing date 20 June 2018

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

Northland Environmental Protection Society Inc. v Ministry of Primary Industries & Ors [2016] NZHC 308 [1 March 2017]

Criminal Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal on the mode of trial point.

30 July 2018

Hearing date 16 October 2018

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

Not publicly available

S (CA377/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 101 [19 April 2018]

S (SC 36/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 64 [30 July 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.         

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.                                                                                             

15 June 2018  

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

Civil Appeal – Whether a replacement benefit payable under an insurance policy issued by the respondent was assignable. 

A Leave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018

13 November 2018

XU & DIAMANTINA TRUST LTD v IAG NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1964 [17 August 2017]

RUIREN XU AND DIAMANTINA TRUST LIMITED V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZSC 68 [2 August 2018]

T v The Queen

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

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

23 October 2018 

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

H v Refugee and Protection Officer

Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’s appeal.

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (H (CA580/2017) v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZCA 188).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018

_______________

reserved judgment 29 October 2018

29 October 2018

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

Not publicly available

The confidentiality of the name or identifying particulars of the appellant and of his claim or status must be maintained pursuant to s 151 of the immigration act 2009.

H (SC 52/2018) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2018] NZSC 79 [24 August 2018]

Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999. 

5 December 2018

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

Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United Staes of America and The District Court at North Shore  [2017] NZHC 189

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.

5 December 2018

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

Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United Staes of America and The District Court at North Shore  [2017] NZHC 189

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013. 

5 December 2018

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

Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United Staes of America and The District Court at North Shore  [2017] NZHC 189

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Copyright Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on the admissibility of evidence challenging the record of the case.  

5 December 2018

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

Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United Staes of America and The District Court at North Shore  [2017] NZHC 189

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.  

5 December 2018

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

Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United Staes of America and The District Court at North Shore  [2017] NZHC 189

Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(b) – Judge-alone trial –Whether the High Court Judge applied the right standard of review to the applicant’s appeal against conviction. 

A Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment (Sena v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 2319), is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss Mr Sena’s appeal against conviction brought under s 232(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  
10 October 2018 

Not publicly available

[2017] NZHC 2319  25 September 2017_

13 and 14 February 2019

William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Arnold 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.

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.  
29 August 2018

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

Douglas Craig Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated and Far North District Council

OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 154 [14 February 2017]

George Whichman v The Queen

H 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

T 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 RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED. 

Hayley Dawn Young v  The Attorney General and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)

Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the second respondent’s protest to jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the courts of England and Wales are the more appropriate forum for the applicant’s claim.    

Gordon John Rippey v  The Queen

not publicly available

Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited 

PAUAMAC5 INCORPORATED v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION [2017] NZHC 1182 [2 June 2017]  

PAUAMAC5 INCORPORATED v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION [2018] NZCA 348 [4 September 2018]  

SHARK EXPERIENCE LIMITED v PAUAMAC5 INCORPORATED [2018] NZSC 121 [11 December 2018]

Robt Jones Holdings Limited v Anthony John McCullagh and Stephen Mark Lawrence liquidators of Northern Crest Investments Limited

MCCULLAGH v ROBT JONES HOLDINGS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2182 [8 September 2017] 

ROBT. JONES HOLDINGS LIMITED v MCCULLAGH [2018] NZCA 358 [10 September 2018] 

ROBT JONES HOLDINGS LIMITED v McCULLAGH [2018] NZSC 120 [6 December 2018]

P v The Queen  

Not publicly available

P (CA354/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 361 [11 September 2018] 

A v The Queen

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

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

Lemuel Misa v The Queen

MISA v R [2018] NZCA 293 [6 August 2018]

H v The Queen

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

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

29 November 2018

Not publicly available

Mark Edward Lundy v The Queen

LUNDY v R [2018] NZCA 410 [9 October 2018]

Fredrick Hill v Maori Trustee

HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2018] NZCA 280 [31 July 2018]

H v The Queen

 H (CA376/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 376 [20 September 2018]

Mark Arona v The Queen

ARONA & CHAMBERS v R [2018] NZCA 427 [12 October 2018] 

Incodo Limited v Kop-Coat New Zealand Limited and Kop-Coat Incorporated

KOP-COAT NEW ZEALAND LTD v INCODO LTD [2018] NZCA 430 [15 October 2018]

Jia Wen Mao v Inno Capital No.4 Limited, Damien Grant and Steven Khov as Liquidators of Chen Hong Co Limited (in liquidation)

Kim Dotcom v District Court at North Shore, Deputy Solicitor -General (Criminal) and Minister of Justice

Jesse-James Winter v The Queen

Mina Crichton v Carolyn Green, Jane Reidl-Moss and Steve Culpan

Allan John Titford v The Queen

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal should be granted. 

Rangitira Developments Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the declarations and orders made by the High Court.   

Christian John Gillibrand and Mary Caecilia Gillibrand (as trustees of The Chris and Mary Gillibrand family trust) v George Peter Swanepoel

Christopher Robert Halpin v The Queen

Gerardus Peter van Uden v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

George Robert Jolley v The Queen