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.

29 April 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 26 April 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 26 April 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 134 KB)

All years

Case name
Pauesi Brown v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2011
Summary
Criminal – Sentence – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to dismiss appeal against sentence – Whether appropriate approach taken to mitigating and aggravating features – Absence of specific credit for remorse – Insufficient credit for guilty plea – Whether correct approach taken to imposing Minimum Period of Imprisonment.  [2011] NZCA 95  CA 894/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BROWN v R SC 44/2011 [5 July 2011] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 July 2011.
Case name
Maritime New Zealand v Survey Nelson Limited
Case number
SC 45/2011
Summary
Judicial Review – Direct appeal from High Court decision – Whether Court of Appeal decision which High Court interpreted correct (see SC 14/2011) – Accordingly, whether High Court decision correct – Whether failure to grant leave would result in substantial miscarriage of justice.   Civ  2011 485 391
Dates

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

8 June 2011.
Hearing
29 November 2011.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:

(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?

(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?

(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?

6 September 2011

________________________

A The appeals are allowed.

B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.

C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.

D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.

E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.

F  Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.

9 August 2012

______________________

Recall judgment

Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.

F  The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.

G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.

H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.

11 December 1012
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Peter Morrison Petryszick v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385 of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, after an order by the Supreme Court to remit this appeal in Petryszick v R [2010] NZSC 105, [2011] 1 NZLR 153, denied the appellant an effective appeal against conviction on one count of assault using a motor vehicle as a weapon. [2011] NZCA 99  CA 269/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PETRYSZICK V R SC 47/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

30 June 2011.
Case name
Carol Margaret Down v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Applicant convicted of four counts of discharge of a contaminant under s 15 RMA – Whether s 15 discharge offences are infringement offences as defined in s 2(1) SPA and therefore required leave of District Court Judge or Registrar to lay informations under s 21 SPA and also s 78A SPA applicable – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find prosecution saved in any case by s 204 SPA and did not result in a nullity.[2011] NZCA 119  CA 819/2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 48 2011 carol margaret down v the queen (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 48 2011 carol margaret down v the queen (PDF, 154 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 29 November 2012
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 49/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Defamation – Whether Court of Appeal, in considering quantum of damages awarded against applicant, erred by: not considering applicant’s substantive defence of truth; upholding finding of liability in the circumstances. [2011] NZCA 106  CA 826/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [3 June 2011] (PDF, 99 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [21 October 2011 (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 June 2011.
Case name
DF  v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of Evidence – Defective warrant – Whether the Court of Appeal gave sufficient weight to defects in the warrant application when it determined that the evidence was admissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2011] NZCA 151  CA 612/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 May 2011
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160  CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROWLEY and SKINNER v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 51/2011 [7 July 2011] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000.  [2011] NZCA 132  CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 52 2011 lewis gaire herdman thompson v cir leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:

A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?

B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?

22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Shane Andrew Ellis v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Juries Act 1981 – Applicant convicted in High Court at Wellington by jury trial on three counts of importing methamphetamine – Jury selected in accordance with Juries Act – Whether trial was unfair as jury unrepresentative of population, in particular New Zealand’ s rural population, and did not constitute trial by applicant’s peers.[2011] NZCA 90 CA 739/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ELLIS v R SC 53/2011 [2 June 2011] (PDF, 55 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 June 2011.
Page 170 of 242