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
Kawarau Village Holdings Limited and Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Limited (in receivership) v Ho Kok Sun, Peninsula Road Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Russell McVeagh
Case number
SC 115/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of a sale and purchase agreement – Whether there was breach of an essential obligation – Whether the purchasers were required to settle the agreement when called upon.NZCA 427 CA105/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Sun and Ors v Peninsula Road Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2016] NZCA 427).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.
21 December 2016
_______________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.
21 December 2016
_______________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 April 2017 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- khmr (PDF, 252 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2016) from CRI 2015-485-52, High Court at Christchurch
Case number
SC 118/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the correct remedy was the quashing of the defendant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 417 CA663/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2016) [2016] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 March 2017 (PDF, 243 KB)
Media Releases
- sc118 2016mr (PDF, 310 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 121/2016
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. [2016] NZCA 461 CA326/2016
Result
Judgment released.
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.
5 December 2016
SC judgment
not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2016
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.[2016] NZCA 461 CA310/2016
Result
Judgment released.
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.
5 December 2016
SC judgment
not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 124/2016
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
Judgment released.
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.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
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.
26 September 2017
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.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
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.
26 September 2017
Transcript
Hearing date : 29 March 2017
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.
Case name
Affco New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Meat Workers and related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors
Case number
SC 131/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding concession by counsel – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant’s conduct defeated existing rights of employees – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act. [2016] NZCA 482 CA700/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc and Ors [2016] NZCA 482).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 and 21 June 2017 (PDF, 857 KB)
Media Releases
- amwmr (PDF, 251 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 132/2016
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. [2016] NZHC 2401 CRI 2016-087-000335
Result
Judgment released.
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.
30 November 2016
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.
30 November 2016
SC judgment
not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Glenn Roderick Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 136/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, pt 1A – Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Parole Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the gravity of the offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the length of the extended supervision order was proportionate to the risk posed by the defendant. [2016] NZCA 504 CA119/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504).B The approved questions are:
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 October 2017 (PDF, 111 KB)
Media Releases
- hcmr (PDF, 286 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter and 168 Group Limited
Case number
SC 138/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – s 44 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44.[2016] NZCA 514 CA720/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 June 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.
Page 31 of 67