Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case information 2015

 

2017|2016|2015| 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for 2015 along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing. 

Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.

All 2017 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here

Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed.  Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial.  These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.  


Updated 14 August 2017
 

Case Number

SC 131/2015   

Case Name

The Queen v P

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the statements made by P in his video interview after the interview recommenced at 4pm on 4 June 2014 should be admissible – Whether the evidence of the walk-through of the scene and further statements made by Mr P to police on 6 June 2014 should be admissible.

[2015] NZCA 530   CA 474/2015

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted [P v R [2015] NZCA 530]
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:

the statements made by Mr P in his video interview after the interview re-commenced at 4 pm on 4 June 2014;

and evidence of the walk-through of the scene and the further statements made by Mr P to police on 6 June 2014 are inadmissible against Mr P at trial.

18 December 2015

Hearing date

21 April 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Result

Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.  

Judgment appealed from

P v R [2015] NZCA 530   11 Nov 2015_ not publicly available

 

 

Case Number

SC 126/2015   

Case Name

David Ingram Rowley v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.

[2015] NZCA 233     CA 572/2012 

Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC ¶22-011).

In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].

15 February 2016

___________

The appeals are dismissed.   

10 August 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 9 June 2016

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.

HC judgment

R v ROWLEY & SKINNER HC WN CRI 2010-085-006205   20 July 2012

Judgment appealed from

ROWLEY & SKINNER V R CA572/2012 [2015] NZCA 233    10 June 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7     15 February 2016

Substantive judgment / Media release BARRIE JAMES SKINNER v R [2016] NZSC 101    10 August 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 115/2015   

Case Name

Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen

Summary

Criminal appeal – Whether a tailored demeanour direction should have been given at trial – Whether evidence of breach of a police safety order was admissible as propensity evidence and whether a “proper use” direction was required in respect of that evidence

[2015] NZCA 434   CA 597/2014

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].

B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:

-no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and

-evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.

 18 December 2015

___________

The appeal is dismissed.                                                           

8 September 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 7 June 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

TANIWHA v R [2015] NZCA 434    11 September 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA v R [2015] NZSC 200  18 December 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release

LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA v R [2016] NZSC 123  8 September 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 108/2015   

Case Name

Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and  Body Corporate 341188 and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. 

[2015] NZCA 393   CA 185/2014

Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).

B  The approved ground is:

Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?

C  We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.

10 December 2015

___________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.                          

20 December 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 28 June 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

High Court judgment
Judgment appealed from

BODY CORPORATE 341188 v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZCA 393  26 August 2015

Leave judgment - leave approved

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZSC 188    10 December 2015

Substantive judgment - Media release

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZSC 167      20 December 2016

 

top

Case Number

SC 107/2015   

Case Name

Mobil Oil New Zealand  Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)

Summary

Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. 

[2015] NZCA 390    CA 111/2014

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).

B The approved questions are:

Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland Waterfront

Development Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?

If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?

If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?

20 November 2015

______________

A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored. 
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.

20 July 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 19 April 2016

Elias CJ,  William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan  JJ.

HC judgment

AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 84 [7 February 2014]

Judgment appealed from

AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA111/2014 [2015] NZCA 390  25 August 2015]

Leave judgment - leave granted

MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177  20 November 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release

MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2016] NZSC 89   20 July 2016

 
 

Case Number

SC 93/2015   

Case Name

Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School.

Summary

Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.

[2015] NZCA 321     CA 238/2014

Result

A  The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).

B  The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:

(i)   The claims in negligence are arguable;

(ii)  The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and

(iii)  Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.

30 November 2015

____________________

A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.

C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.

D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

29 July 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 13 – 15 April 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ

HC judgment

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LTD [2014] NZHC 681 4 April 2014

Judgment appealed from

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS CA420/2013 [2015] NZCA 321  23 July 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2015] NZSC 182  30 November 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2016] NZSC 95  29 July 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 86/2015   

Case Name

Morton  v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.

[2015] NZCA  322   CA 266/2015

Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).

B The approved question is:

“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.

27 August 2015

___

A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016

Hearing

18 November 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

 M v R [2015] NZCA 322 (White, Venning and Williams JJ)

Substantive judgment

 RICHARD JAMES CAMERON MORTON v R [2016] NZSC 51 [5 May 2016]

 

 

Case Number

SC 79/2015   

Case Name

Barrie James Skinner v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.

[2015] NZCA  233   CA 573/2012

Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC.

In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].

15 February 2016

______________

The appeals are dismissed.      

10 August 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 9 June 2016

Judges:  William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.

Judgment appealed from

ROWLEY & SKINNER V R  [2015] NZCA 233       10 June 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7   15 February 2016
Substantive judgment - Media release BARRIE JAMES SKINNER v R [2016] NZSC 101   10 August 2016

 

Case Number

SC 74/2015   

Case Name

Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Summary

Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.

[2015] NZCA 253   CA830/2013

Result A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:

(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal?  If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?

(b)  Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court?  If so, what is the significance of this?

(c )  What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?

(d)  Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?

11 September 2015

________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

27 July 2016

Transcript

Hearing dates : 8 – 10 March 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ

Judgment appealed from

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v TRUSTPOWER LIMITED [2015] NZCA 253  19 June 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

TRUSTPOWER LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 134  11 September 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release

TRUSTPOWER LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZSC 91  27 July 2016

 

 top

Case Number

SC 67/2015   

Case Name

The Queen v SSC

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admissions in response to police questioning – Whether exclusion of evidence is proportionate to the police impropriety. 

[2015] NZCA 241

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted (C v R [2015] NZCA 241).

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to quash the High Court’s order that the latter part (commencing at 2.14 pm) of the interview between Mr C and the police on 28 March 2014 is admissible at his trial.

31 July 2015

__________________

Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.                                                    

17 June 2016

Hearing

10 December 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

CHETTY V R CA751/2014 [2015] NZCA 241 [15 June 2015]

 

 

Case Number

SC 61/2015   

Case Name

Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial ­– whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt.  

[2015] NZCA 162  CA 58/2014

[2012] NZCA 559  CA 262/2012

Results A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.

15 October 2015

____________________

The appeal is dismissed.

6 July 2016

Transcript

Hearing date: 9  February 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ

Judgment appealed from

JOHNSTON v R CA58/2014 [2015] NZCA 162   12 May 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2015] NZSC 143   15 October 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2016] NZSC 83    6 July 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 59/2015   

Case Name

John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791

Summary

Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.

[2015] NZCA 185  CA 213/2014

Results

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i)  to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.

4 September 2015

_______________

A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 8  December 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ

Judgment appealed from

BODY CORPORATE 162791 V GILBERT CA213/2014 [2015] NZCA 185  21 May 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

JOHN GILBERT v BODY CORPORATE 162791 [2015] NZSC 133   4 September 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release JOHN GILBERT v BODY CORPORATE 162791 [2016] NZSC 61   2 June 2016

 

 

Case Number

SC 57/2015   

Case Name

Tony Gordon Best v The Queen 

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. 

[2015] NZCA 159  CA 254/2014

Result A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.

3 November 2015

___________________

The appeal is dismissed.                                                              

8 September 2016

Hearing

11 February 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

BEST v R CA254/2014 [2015] NZCA 159    12 May 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

TONY GORDON BEST v R [2015] NZSC 167    3 November 2015

Substantive judgment - Media release TONY GORDON BEST v R [2016] NZSC 122   8 September 2016

 

Case Number

SC 47/2015   

Case Name

Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General 

Summary

Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.

[2015] NZCA 160  CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015

Results

An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.

14 May 2015

___

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B  The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a)   the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b)   the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C   The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D  The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.

 

27 May 2015

__________

A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i)    The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii)    The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.

9 June 2016

___________

A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.

1 May 2017

Transcript

Hearing date : 26 May 2015

Hearing date : 17 - 19 August 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V RIRINUI CA336/2014 [2015] NZCA 160   12 May 2015

Order 14 May 2015 MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI v LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED [2015] NZSC 65   14 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted

RIRINUI v LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED and ANOR [2015] NZSC 72  27 May 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI v LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED [2016] NZSC 62  9 June 2016
Judgment as to costs MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI v LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED [2017] NZSC 53   1 May 2017

 

 

Case Number

SC 40/2015 

Case Name

Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission

Summary

Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. 

 [2015] NZCA  78  CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014

Results A   The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
B   The approved question is:

Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?

2 July 2015

_______________

A The appeal is dismissed.                                                         
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).  
We certify for two counsel.                                                        

12 May 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 10 and 11 November 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND MOTOR TRADE FINANCES LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION CA727/2013 AND CA593/2014 [2015] NZCA 78    24 March 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION
[2015] NZSC 97    2 July 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release SPORTZONE MOTORCYCLES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMERCE COMMISSION
[2016] NZSC 53    12 May 2016

 

 

Case Number

 SC 38/2015 

Case Name

Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.

[2015] NZCA  30  CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014

Results

A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

If so:

Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?

If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?

C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:

Section 44C of the PRA?

Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?

18 June 2015

_______________

A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.

23 March 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 1, 2 and 8 September 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from CLAYTON v CLAYTON CA438/2013 [2015] NZCA 30    26 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 84    18 June 2015
Substantive judgment / Media release MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2016] NZSC 29    23 March 2016

 

Case Number

SC 30/2015 

Case Name

Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Ross Winston Blackwell  v Leith Roger Chick and Rosemary Chick and Edmonds Judd

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ lack of mental capacity and unconscionable bargain defences in CA 481/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity in CA 476/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there was no causation as to the lawyer’s negligent advice and the loss suffered by the deceased.

[2015] NZCA 34  CA 481/2013; CA 476/2013

Result A The application for leave to appeal in CA 481/2013 is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C  The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.

19 June 2015

________________

A The appeal is allowed.  Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.                                       
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.   
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.                                                      
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside.  Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.                             
22 April 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 2 February 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

BLACKWELL V CHICK CA481/2013 [2015] NZCA 34   27 February 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

DEREK NICHOLAS BLACKWELL AND CHARLES BASIL BLACKWELL as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of ROSS WINSTON BLACKWELL v LEITH ROGER CHICK AND ROSEMARY CHICK [2015] NZSC 85      19 June 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release DEREK NICHOLAS BLACKWELL AND CHARLES BASIL BLACKWELL AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS WINSTON BLACKWELL v EDMONDS JUDD [2016] NZSC 40  22 April 2016

  

 

Case Number

SC 23/2015 

Case Name

Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.

[2015] NZCA  30  CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014

Results

A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?

If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?

18 June 2015

_________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust).  We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016

Transcript

Hearing date : 1, 2 and 8 September 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

CLAYTON v CLAYTON CA438/2013 [2015] NZCA 30   26 February 2015

Leave judgment - leave granted

MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 84  18 June 2015

Substantive judgment / Media release MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2016] NZSC 29   23 March 2016

 

 

Case Number

 SC 13/2015

Case Name

Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust

Summary

Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.
[2014] NZCA 628    CA 436/2012

Results

A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.

B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.

C The approved grounds are:

Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu?

If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time?

If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown?

If so, what relief is appropriate?

Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014?

D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.

8 May 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 12 – 15 October 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

Judgment appealed from

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATŪ v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA436/2012 [2014] NZCA 628     19 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATŪ & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZSC 54  8 May 2015

Substantive judgment - Media release

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 17 [28 February 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Case Number

 SC 10/2015

Case Name

Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Summary

Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’s intention to resume living in New Zealand.

[2014] NZCA 611    CA 351/2014

Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611).

The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.

11 May 2015

________________________

Appeal dismissed.

No order as to costs.

24September 2015.

___________________

Application for recall dismissed

27 October 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 20 August 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.

NZSSA decision

An appeal against a decision of the Benefits Review Committee [2013] NZSSAA 14 (18 February 2013)

Judgment appealed from

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v GREENFIELD CA351/2014    [2014] NZCA 611   12 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 57    11 May 2015
Substantive judgment / Media release DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 139    24 September 2015
Recall judgment - recall dismissed

DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 155    27 October 2015

 

 

Case Number

 SC 4/2015

Case Name

 Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen  

Summary

Criminal Appeal – “Red Devils” case – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction – Whether a stay should have been granted.   

[2014] NZCA 584 CA   725/2012

Result A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved questions are:

Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if not

Does this warrant the quashing of the convictions?

26 May 2015

______________

Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.

14 December 2015

Transcript

Hearing date : 7 July 2015

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ.

Judgment appealed from

WILSON v R CA725/2012 [2014] NZCA 584   1 December 2014

Leave judgment - leave granted TREVOR JOHN MOMO WILSON v R [2015] NZSC 71  26 May 2015
Substantive judgment / Media release TREVOR JOHN MOMO WILSON v R [2015] NZSC 189   14 December 2015

 

 

 

top