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
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Chief Justice and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 15/2012
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 558/2011  [2012]  NZCA68
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 May 2012.
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 16/2012
Summary
Administrative law – Habeas Corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 16 (1A) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant writ of Habeas Corpus – Improper composition of bench – Error in Warrant for Imprisonment – Breach of natural justice.CA 66/2012  [2012]  NZCA 22
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 April 2012.
Case name
Shannon Richard Andrews v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take the personal circumstances of the Applicant into consideration – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a greater sentence to the Applicant than to his co-conspirator – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not questioning how the estimation as to the stolen goods was reached – whether the Court of Appeal was influenced inappropriately by allegedly bias comments made by the sentencing judge.CA 455/2011  [2012]  NZCA 61
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 May 2012.
Case name
Tyson Bennett v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in prioritising punishment over rehabilitation – Whether the Court of Appeal placed disproportionate weight on one of the purposes of sentencing in the Sentencing Act 2002SC 682/2011  [2012] NZCA 44
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
22 August 2012.
Case name
Michael Santo Colosimo v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Disclosure of documents at trial or before trial – Whether the trial Judge and Court of Appeal erred in their approach to alleged prejudice caused by prosecution use of a document not disclosed before trial – Whether the trial Judge should have ordered an adjournment or made other appropriate orders once the document in question was disclosed.SC 687/2011  [2012] NZCA 60
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 May 2012.
Case name
Shane Daniel Hannigan  v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011  [2012] NZCA 133
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. 

30 May 2012

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

26 April 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 October 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
WDB v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Pre-trial application – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against admission of propensity evidence at trial – Probative value of propensity evidence in identifying the offender –– Incident of alleged offending and propensity incident allegedly different in nature – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to regard that the inevitable identification of the applicant in respect of all charges once the applicant’s identification on one charge is established is not unfairly prejudicial.CA 696/2011    [2012] NZCA106
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 May 2012.
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v New Zealand Parole Board, Department of Corrections, New Zealand Immigration.
Case number
SC 23/2012
Summary
Criminal law – Parole – Parole Act 2002, ss 21(1) and 28(5) -  Habeas corpus - Whether the Parole Board’s exercise of its extraordinary powers under s 28(5)  to amend the applicant’s release date was in breach of section 22 of the Bill of Rights 1990 prohibiting arbitrary detention – Whether not permitting the applicant to be heard or represented at certain Parole Board sittings was in breach of s 27(1) of the Bill of Rights 1990 - Whether the chairman of the Parole Board failed to comply with the procedures set out in the Parole Act 2002 and Criminal Justice Act 1985 – Whether the Parole Board failed to comply with its own policy regarding disclosure – Whether the Parole Board’s decision was based on erroneous and irrelevant information and falsified High Court records – whether the Parole Board acted outside of its jurisdiction and abused its power.CA164/2012  [2012] NZCA 116
Dates
Application for leave to appeal  dismissed.
21 June  2012.
Case name
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Page 158 of 243