Skip to content. | Skip to navigation


Navigation

Document Actions

Case information 2018

 

 2019|2018| 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for 2018 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 2019 - 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 28 August 2019

Case number

SC 7/2018

Case Name M v The Queen
Summary 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.
Result 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.
High/District Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

 

Case number

SC 10/2018

Case Name Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries, Comptroller of Customs and The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
Summary

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

Result

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

Transcript

Hearing date 20 June 2018

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

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal NORTHLAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOCIETY INC v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZCA 607 [19 December 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted NORTHLAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF
THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZSC 36
Substantive judgment / Media release NORTHLAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZSC 105 [9 November 2018]

 

 

Case number

SC 11/2018

Case Name Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation, Fullers Group Limited and Motutapu Island Restoration Trust
Summary

Civil Appeal – Conservation Act 1987 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that concessions to conduct guided tours over Rangitoto and Motutapu could be granted despite iwi objections.   

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2017] NZCA 613).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.                                 

8 May 2018 

______________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.  The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed.  We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018

Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 August 2018

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

High Court judgment

NGAI TAI KI TAMAKI TRIBAL TRUST v MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2017] NZHC 300 [1 March 2017] 

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal NGĀI TAI KI TĀMAKI TRIBAL TRUST v MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2017] NZCA 613 [19 December 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted NGĀI TAI KI TĀMAKI TRIBAL TRUST v MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2018] NZSC 41 [8 May 2018]
Substantive judgment / Media release NGĀI TAI KI TĀMAKI TRIBAL TRUST v MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2018] NZSC 122
[14 December 2018]

 

Case number

SC 21/2018

Case Name Colin Graeme Craig v Jordan Henry Williams
Summary

Civil Appeal – Defamation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the High Court to order a full retrial – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s order setting aside the jury’s verdict on damages. 

Result

A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.                                         
4 July 2018 

_________________

A The appeal is allowed.  The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside.  An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment.  Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019

Transcription

Hearing date 4 and 5 September 2018

Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Arnold JJ.

High Court judgment WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2017] NZHC 724 [12 April 2017]
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2018] NZCA 31 [5 March 2018]

Leave judgment - leave granted

CRAIG v WILLIAMS  [2018] NZSC 61 [4 July 2018]

Substantive judgment / Media release

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 38 [11 April 2019]

Recall judgment / recall dismissed

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 60 [25 June 2019]

Stay of costs orders dismissed

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 74 [17 July 2019]

 

 
Case number

SC 22/2018

Case Name Jeremy James McGuire v The Secretary for Justice
Summary

Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review – Whether a self-represented litigant who is a practising lawyer can receive a costs award. 

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal        

12 June 2018

_______________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018

Transcript

Hearing date 1 August 2018

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

High Court judgment JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 365 [7 March 2017]  
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2018] NZCA 37 [9 March 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2018] NZSC 50 [12 June 2018]
Substantive judgment / Media release JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2018] NZSC 116 [27 November 2018]

 

 

Case number

SC 34/2018

Case Name H v The Queen
Summary

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.      

Result

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.

17 July 2018 

District Court/High Court judgment

Not publicly available 

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

 

Case number

SC 35/2018

Case Name Mark Robert Sandman v Colin Charles McKay, Roger David Cann and David John Clark
Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (McKay v Sandman [2018] NZCA 103, [2018] NZAR 707).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
7 August 2018

________________________

A  The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondents.  
16 April 2019

Transcript

Hearing date 12 November 2018

High Court judgment

M R SANDMAN v R J GIBONEY AND C C MCKAY AND C C MCKAY, R D CANN AND D J CLARK [2017] NZHC 1832 [4 August 2017]

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

MCKAY & ORS v MARK ROBERT SANDMAN [2018] NZCA 103 [20 April 2018]

Leave judgment - leave granted

MARK ROBERT SANDMAN V COLIN CHARLES MCKAY, ROGER DAVID CANN AND DAVID JOHN CLARK [2018] NZSC 71 [7 August 2018]

Substantive judgment / Media Release

MARK ROBERT SANDMAN v COLIN CHARLES McKAY, ROGER DAVID CANN AND DAVID JOHN CLARK (as partners of Wilson McKay) [2019] NZSC 41 [16 April 2019]

 

  

Case number

SC 36/2018

Case Name S v The Queen
Summary

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

Result A  The application for leave to appeal is granted (S (CA377/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 101).
B  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal on the mode of trial point.

30 July 2018

___________________

The appeal is dismissed.
20 December 2018

Transcript

Hearing date 16 October 2018

District Court judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment / Media Release

S (SC 36/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 124 [20 December 2018]

 

Case number

SC 40/2018

Case Name F v The Queen
Summary

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.         

Result

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  

High/District Court judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

Not publicly available

 

Case number

SC 42/2018

Case Name George WHICHMAN v The Queen
Summary

Not publicly available

Result

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

  

Case number

SC 47/2018

Case Name Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited
Summary

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

Result

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

_________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.  
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019

 

Transcription

Hearing date 13 November 2018

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal XU AND ANOR v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZCA 149 [11 May 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment /  Media Release

RUIREN XU AND DIAMANTINA TRUST LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2019] NZSC 68
[3 July 2019]

 

Case number

SC 51/2018

Case Name

T v The Queen

Summary

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. 

Result

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 

High Court judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

Not publicly available

 

Case number

SC 52/2018

Case name

H v Refugee and Protection Officer

Summary

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

Result

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

_______________

 

Transcript

Hearing date 29 October 2018

High Court judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

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.

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment / Media Release

H (SC 52/2018) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2019] NZSC 13 [25 February 2019]

 

SC 54/2018 / SC 55/2018 / SC 56/2018 / SC 57/2018 / SC 58/2018 hearing date 10-14 June 2019:

Case number

SC 54/2018

Case Name Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Summary

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. 

Transcript

Oral hearing – Jurisdiction 5 December 2018

Result

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.                                           
20 December 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).  
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed.  Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.                                                   
20 December 2018

Hearing date

10 - 14 June 2019

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

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case synopsis including case history and issues for determination by Supreme Court hearing 10 June - 14 June 2019

  

Case number

SC 55/2018

Case Name Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America
Summary

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.

Transcript

Oral hearing - Jurisdiction 5 December 2018

Result

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.                                           
20 December 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).  
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed.  Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.                                                   
20 December 2018 

___________________________________________________________________

A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019

 

Hearing date

10 - 14 June 2019

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

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined

 

Case number

SC 56/2018

Case Name Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van der Kolk v The United States of America
Summary

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. 

Transcript

Oral hearing – Jurisdiction 5 December 2018

Result

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.                                           
20 December 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).  
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed.  Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.                                                   
20 December 2018 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019

Hearing date

10 - 14 June 2019

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

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

ORTMANN v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2018] NZCA 233 [5 July 20

Supreme Court judgment / Media Release

MATHIAS ORTMANN v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2018] NZSC 125 [20 December 2018]

Leave judgment - leave granted

MATHIAS ORTMANN v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2018] NZSC 126 [20 December 2018]

Leave to intervene declined

FINN HABIB BATATO v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2019] NZSC 50 [20 May 2019]

Case synopsis including case history and issues for determination by Supreme Court hearing 10 June - 14 June 2019

 

Case number

SC 57/2018

Case Name Kim Dotcom v The United States of America
Summary

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.  

Transcript

Oral hearing – Jurisdiction 5 December 2018

Result

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.                                           
20 December 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).  
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed.  Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.                                                   
20 December 2018 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019

Hearing date

10 - 14 June 2019

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

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Case synopsis including case history and issues for determination by Supreme Court hearing 10 June - 14 June 2019

 

Case number

SC 58/2018

Case Name Kim Dotcom v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Summary

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.  

Transcript

Oral hearing – Jurisdiction 5 December 2018 

Result

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.                                           
20 December 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).  
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed.  Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.                                                   
20 December 2018 

Hearing date

10 - 14 June 2019

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

High Court judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case synopsis including case history and issues for determination by Supreme Court hearing 10 June - 14 June 2019

 

Case number

SC 60/2018

Case Name Yusuke (David) Sena v The Queen
Summary

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. 

Result

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 

__________________________________________________________

A The appeal is allowed.
B The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
C We direct a new trial.
24 May 2019

Transcript

Hearing date 13 February 2019

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

District Court judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - High Court

[2017] NZHC 2319  25 September 2017_

Leave judgment - leave granted

YUSUKE (DAVID) SENA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZSC 92 [10 October 2018]

Substantive Judgment / Media Release

 YUSUKE (DAVID) SENA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZSC 55 [24 May 2019]

 

Case number

SC 61/2018

Case Name F v The Queen
Summary

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.

Result

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

District Court judgment

Not publicly available

High Court Judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

Not publicly available

 
 

Hearing date 9 July 2019 SC 66/2018:

Case number

SC 66/2018

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the interpretation of the scope of easements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not relying on resource consents when examining the easements at issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the question of indefeasibility.   

Result A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated v Far North District Council [2018] NZCA 262).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 February 2019
Hearing date

9 and 10 July 2019

Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Arnold JJ

High Court Judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZCA 262 [20 July 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted DOUGLAS CRAIG SCHMUCK v OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 7 [21 February 2019]

 

Case number

SC 69/2018

Case Name

George Whichman v The Queen

Summary

Not publicly available 

Result Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

 

Case number

SC 70/2018

Case Name

H v The Queen

Summary

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. 

Result 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.
High Court Judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

    

Case number

SC 74/2018

Case Name

T v The Queen

Summary

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. 

Result 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.

 

Case number

SC 78 /2018

Case Name

Gordon John Rippey v  The Queen

Summary

 

Result
High Court Judgment

not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal [2018] NZCA 306 [10 August 2018]_

 

Hearing date 26 March 2019 SC 86/2018

Case number

SC 86/2018

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953. 

Result A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
Transcript

Hearing date 26 March 2019

High Court Judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

 

Case number

SC 87/2018

Case Name

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

Summary

Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no requirement in s 292 that a voidable transaction diminish the pool of assets available to creditors.    

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Robt Jones Holdings Ltd v McCullagh [2018] NZCA 358).
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018

___________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019

Transcript

Hearing date 30 April 2019

High Court Judgment

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

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

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

Substantive judgment / Media release

ROBT. JONES HOLDINGS LIMITED v ANTHONY JOHN MCCULLAGH AND STEPHEN MARK LAWRENCE [2019] NZSC 86 [9 August 2019]

 

Case number

SC 91/2018

Case Name

A v The Queen

Summary

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. 

Result

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.

20 December 2018

District Court Judgment

Not publicly available

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

Not publicly available

 

Hearing date 11 July SC 93/2018:

Case number

SC 93/2018

Case Name

Lemuel Misa v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction on the basis that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the jury was properly directed at trial.

Result A Leave to appeal is granted (Misa v R [2018] NZCA 293).
B The approved question is whether there was a miscarriage of justice at the applicant’s trial.
17 April 2019
Hearing date

11 July 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams  and Arnold JJ

High/District Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

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

Leave judgment - leave granted LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 42 [17 April 2019]

 

Case number

SC 94/2018

Case Name

H v The Queen

Summary

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. 

Result

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

High/District Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

Not publicly available

 

case synopsis Mark Edward Lundy v The Queen (SC 95/2018) - hearing date 27 August 2019

Case number

SC 95/2018

Case Name

Mark Edward Lundy v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal –  Crimes Act 1961, s 385 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction under the proviso to s 385(1) despite finding that certain evidence presented at trial was inadmissible. 

Result A Leave to appeal is granted (Lundy v R [2018] NZCA 410) in relation to the approved question below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
6 May 2019
Transcript

Leave Hearing date 2 May 2019

Hearing/Judges

27 August 2019

William Young , O'Regan, Williams, Arnold and Miller  JJ 

High Court judgment
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

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

Leave judgment - leave granted

MARK EDWARD LUNDY v R [2019] NZSC 45 [6 May 2019]

 

Case synopsis Mark Edward Lundy v The Queen (SC 95/2018)

 

 

Case number

SC 97/2018

Case Name

H v The Queen

Summary

Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 does not apply to the applicant’s charge of rape – If s 322 does apply to the charge, whether the rape charge should have been dismissed prior to the applicant’s trial.     

Hearing date

4 April 2019

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

Result

A The application for leave to appeal against the conviction for rape is granted (H (CA376/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 376).
B The approved question is whether, in dealing with delay, the Court of Appeal correctly dealt with the age of the appellant (including the application of s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989).
21 February 2019

_______________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
3 July 2019

High Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal

Not publicly available

Leave judgment - leave granted

H (SC 97/2018) v R [2019] NZSC 4 [21 February 2019]

Substantive judgment - Media Release

H (SC 97/2018) v R [2019] NZSC 69 [3 July 2019]

  

Hearing date 16 May 2019 SC 102/2018

Case number

SC 102/2018

Case Name

Jesse-James Winter v The Queen

Summary

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

Result A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Winter v R [2018] NZCA 469).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
21 February 2019
Transcript

Hearing date 16 May 2019

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

District Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal WINTER & HANSON v R [2018] NZCA 469 [31 October 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted JESSE-JAMES WINTER v R [2019] NZSC 8 [21 February 2019]

 

Case number

SC 105/2018

Case Name

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

Summary

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

Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019

________________________________________________________

A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019

Transcript

Hearing date 8 July 2019

High Court judgment RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LTD v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY LTD [2018] NZHC 146 [14 February 2018]
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2018] NZCA 445 [23 October 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LTD v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INC [2019] NZSC 6 [20 February 2019]
Substantive judgment / Media release RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 81 [26 July 2019]

 

Case number

SC 114/2018

Case Name

H v The Queen

Summary

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.  

Result

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.
27 February 2019

High Court/District Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

 

Case number

SC 115/2018

Case Name

P v The Queen

Summary

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.  

Result

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.
27 February 2019

High Court/District Court judgment Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

 

Hearing date 21 and 22 August: SC 116/2018

Case number

SC 116/2018

Case Name

Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission 

Summary

Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision. 

Date of Hearing

21 and 22 August 2019

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

Result A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
High Court judgment COMMERCE COMMISSION v LODGE REAL ESTATE LTD & ORS [2017] NZHC 1497 [2 November 2017]
Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal COMMERCE COMMISSION v LODGE REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2018] NZCA 523 [23 November 2018]
Leave judgment - leave  granted LODGE REAL ESTATE LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2019] NZSC 28 [19 March 2019]

 

Case number

SC 119/2018

Case Name W v The Queen
Summary

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.   

Result

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.
11 March 2019

Judgment appealed from - Court of Appeal Not publicly available

 

Hearing date 26 March 2019

Hearing date 10 - 14 June 2019

 Hearing date 27 August 2019

Hearing date 16 May 2019

Hearing date 9 July 2019

Hearing date 11 July 2019

Hearing date 21 and 22 Aug 2019