Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

Supreme Court case information

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year 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 2024 - 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.

14 May 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 92 KB)

All years

Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Linda Gallagher and others.
Case number
SC 5/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – division of property - Property (Relationship) Act 1976 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account relevant considerations regarding separate property owned by the applicant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in making factual findings – whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply basic legal principles – whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant considerations in relation to the Family Trust– whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the Applicant as having the same legal personality as the Third Respondent – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to afford separate legal representation to a minor.[2011] NZCA  669  CA 507/2010, CA 726/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $4,000 to the first respondent.
16 April 2012.
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 6/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Admissibility of expert opinion evidence – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the trial Judge’s refusal to allow the defence to call an expert did not cause a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was not prejudiced by this refusal[2011] NZCA 654  CA 196/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012.
Case name
Rita Wilson v David Murray Blanchett and Grant Edward Burns
Case number
SC 7/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Company Law – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was no arguable defence to the Respondents’ application for summary judgment – Whether certain payments transferred to the Applicant were made with valuable consideration per s 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993[2011] NZCA  647  CA 521/2010.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

24 February 2012.
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited and others
Case number
SC 8/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – High Court Rules, r 5.49 – The respondents sought to set aside a High Court judgment, holding that a forestry investment structure was created for the dominant purpose of tax avoidance and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on the basis that the Commissioner presented a false case to the Court by failing to disclose that another provision of the Income Tax Act 1994 was applicable – This was raised on appeal before the Supreme Court which refused to hear the argument – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding – In the alternative, whether the proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.[2011] NZCA  638  CA 152/2010, CA 204/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:

(i) whether the Commissioner’s challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49; and
(ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.

29 February 2012

_____________________________
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Raghu Aryasomayajula v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice – Whether there was insufficient evidence to convict.[2011] NZCA  633  CA 105/2011
Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.
27 March 2012.

The application for leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

16 December 2015
Case name
Allan John Todd v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction and sentence – Threatening to kill and sexual violation - Whether Court of Appeal correct to dismiss appeal against conviction and sentence – Fair Trial – Police misconduct pre-trial – Right to Counsel – Counsel misconduct at trial – Fresh evidence.CA 265/2004
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 April 2012.
Case name
Ivan Sydney Oliver Hawkins  v The Queen
Case number
SC 11/2012
Summary
Criminal Procedure – Bail Act 2000, ss14, 70 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that granting bail pending appeal to the Applicant, so as to allow him to contact witnesses, was not in the interests of justice.CA 825/2011  [2011]  NZCA 656
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 May 2012.
Case name
Glen Dallas Goldberg  v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2012
Summary
CA 825/2011  [2011]  NZCA 656
Dates

Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

4 April 2012.
Case name
Mark Joseph Benjamin  v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2012
Summary
Criminal Procedure – A number of errors alleged relating to process and matters of fact and law in Court of Appeal decision – Whether by allocating a one day hearing the Court of Appeal breached principles of procedural fairness and natural justice resulting in counsel for the applicant having an inadequate opportunity to present the applicant’s case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to the reliability of the computer system and by refusing to admit new evidence relating to the computer records – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the audit report – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the outcome of the trial was not affected by the decision of the applicant’ s counsel not to brief and lead Mr Lowe’s evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have considered the unlikelihood of Mr Spence junior having acted as an “instrument” of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence as to whether there was an oral agreement to increase the applicant’s salary – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that certain findings regarding count 5 were open to the trial judge – Whether trial counsel misconducted the trial by failing to put the appellant’s case to opposing witnesses as required by s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006. CA 897/2010  [2012]  NZCA 9
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 14/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) 2005, r 35 – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision to decline review of Acting Registrar’s decisions as to security for costs – Whether rule 35 violates the rule of law as it is neither fixed nor predictable – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to an unlawful restriction to court access by imposing a financial barrier to court access and without providing an analysis of the merits of the appeal – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to unlawful governmental protection by preventing appeal challenge to a Crown Judge’s decision to strike out a statutory claim against a Crown officer – Whether rule 35 as currently applied is inconsistent with s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CA 545/2011  [2012]  NZCA 68
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 May 2012.
Page 157 of 243