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

___________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017

Hearing date : 8 August 2017

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

ROOSE v DUTHIE [2016] NZCA 600 15 December 2016

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

CRAIG DUTHIE AND KIRSTEN TAYLOR-RUITERMAN v DENISE MICHELLE ROOSE [2017] NZSC 152 [6 October 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

_______________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved.  The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.                                                                       

23 November 2017                                                                                                                                 

Hearing date 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

________________________

A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  21 December 2017 

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

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

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD v NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOC INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INC [2017] NZSC 199 [21 December 2017]

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

_________________

A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
21 December 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

__________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored.  The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld.  Judgment is entered accordingly.  Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.                                                                                                      

14 December 2017

Hearing date : 10 and 11 August 2017

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

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

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

________________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.                                                                                        
21 December 2017

Hearing date 17 August 2017 (leave application hearing)

Hearing date 11 October 2017 (substantive hearing)

Further hearing date 22 November 2017

Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo 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

________________________________

A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018

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

The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu 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 

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

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

A The application for leave to appeal (Eilenberg v Lourdes Gutierrez [2017] NZCA 270) is granted in part.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Does pt 8 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 implicitly exclude the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce a judgment from Mexico?
(b) Would enforcement of the Mexican judgment be contrary to public policy?
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
26 September 2017 

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. 

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Rowe v R [2017] NZCA 316).
B The approved question is whether Mr Rowe should have been convicted.
12 October 2017 

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.

Leave is granted for application for leave to appeal to be withdrawn without prejudice to the applicants entitlement to re-apply later.                                      

5 February 2018 

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.              

A Leave to appeal is granted on one ground only (Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 326).  
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs. 

_____________________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.                                                                     

23 November 2017                                                      

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.

A Leave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 

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

A Notice of Abondonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
23 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 – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C  There is no costs award.
6 December 2017  

WILLIAM TAYLOR & ors v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 355 [4 March 2016]

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, pt 14 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining “classes of creditors” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants had not disclosed adequate information to the creditors. 

A Leave to appeal is granted (Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd [2017] NZCA 365).
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.                                              
7 November 2017

Hearing date : 22 February 2018

ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LTD AND ORS v TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LTD [2016] NZHC 2119 [7 September 2016]

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed      

1 December 2017 

Not publicly available

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct appellate standard of review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court’s order permitting the applicant to access court records.  

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain propensity evidence was admissible. 

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 – Evidence Act 2006, ss 8 and 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a pre-trial ruling that certain propensity evidence was not admissible. 

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.                                                                                                   

8 February 2018 

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a judge has power to grant leave to the prosecutor to withdraw charges under s 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prior to a determination being made in the course of a pre-trial hearing under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as to a defendant’s involvement in terms of s 13(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge had not made any determination under s 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. 

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.                                                                                                    

7 February 2018 

Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to strike out the applicant’s claim for judicial review – Whether decisions made by the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations regarding land proposed to be applied to Treaty of Waitangi settlements are reviewable.   

A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngᾱti Whᾱtua Ōrᾱkei Trust v Attorney General [2017] NZCA 554).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.                                                                 
23 March 2018