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
Wayne Goodwin Janse v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence on one count of injuring with intent to injury and another of male assaults female – Whether verdict can be supported on the evidence – Whether particular evidence should have been presented to the jury at an earlier stage of the trial – Whether institutional gender bias surrounding domestic violence caused a miscarriage of justice.   [2012]NZCA 214  CA   526/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 October 2012.
Case name
Vector Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2012
Summary
[2012]NZCA 220  CA   702/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether under the Commerce Act 1986 the s 54K(3) power:

(i) is able to be exercised in the manner provided for in s 53P(3)(b) in the absence of a published input methodology (or methodologies) specific to starting price adjustment under s 53P(3)(b); and, if so:

(ii) permits change only to the extent necessitated by the newly published input methodology relied on by the Commission.

14 August 2012

__________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 

15 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 9 and 10 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Dorchester Finance Limited v Deloitte & Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 47/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract Law –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the “Limit on Action” clause at issue in this case did not have the effect of extinguishing the underlying debt to which it applies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the fundamental principles of the law of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a limit on action clause did not have substantive effect – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the subject limit on action clause.[2012]NZCA 226  CA  57/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to each respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

11 September 2012.
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Governor-General
Case number
SC 48/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Waiver of fees – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the decision of the Deputy Registrar to decline to waive fees because the appellant’s case was hopeless on the merits. [2012]NZCA 192   CA   163/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 August 2012
Case name
L  v  R
Case number
SC 49/2012
Summary
Criminal – Surveillance - Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 – Evidence Act 2996, s 30 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that video surveillance of the entrance to the applicant’s driveway did not constitute an unlawful search - Whether the Court erred in admitting the evidence under s 30 Evidence Act 2006.[2012]NZCA 264  CA   143/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal refused.
7 August 2012.
Case name
Gerald Thondhlana v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Appeal against conviction of assault with intent to injure – Whether counsel failed to call relevant medical evidence – Whether counsel adequately argued self-defence – Whether Crown witnesses were cross-examined on inconsistent statements – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred[2012]NZCA 233  CA   536/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
14 November 2012.
Case name
Christopher Edward Huggins v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3) – Doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years – Unreasonable verdict – Insufficient evidence to convict – Court of Appeal erred in holding that lies told by the accused contributed to cogent circumstantial evidence of guilt.  [2012]NZCA 261  CA   768/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 September 2012.
Case name
Patricia Pickering  v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – jury directions – what duty does the Crown Solicitor have to inform the defence in a timely manner when the Crown proposes resiling from an earlier agreement not to offer propensity evidence – is it fair that defence consent to vital propensity evidence can be implied when the evidence and propensity issues were not raised by the Crown with either the defence or with the trial Judge – was the trial Judge’s direction to the jury in respect of inferences/circumstantial evidence adequate – whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from the Crown Solicitor’s use of emotive and inappropriate language in his closing address – whether the High Court should have permitted the “Lammie” evidence to be received as fresh evidence.[2012]NZCA 311  CA   546/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Further Evidence – Whether the Supreme Court should admit further evidence, including evidence from a witness called at trial and evidence from a police interview[2012]NZCA 339  CA  615/2011
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal’ s treatment of the affidavit(s) of H’s son, M, was correct.

28 February 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 May 2015
Page 161 of 243