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
New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General (for and on behalf of the Minister of Health)
Case number
SC 141/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
Date of hearing
16 November 2017
- 17 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 and 17 November 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 59 and MR [2018] NZSC 60 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- bsmr (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors
Case number
SC 150/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents.CA 736/2015 [2016] NZCA 538
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 July 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- fmrp (PDF, 289 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – “Red Devils” case – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction – Whether a stay should have been granted. [2014] NZCA 584 CA 725/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if notDoes this warrant the quashing of the convictions?
26 May 2015
______________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.
14 December 2015
B The approved questions are:Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if notDoes this warrant the quashing of the convictions?
26 May 2015
______________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.
14 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 July 2015 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- sc 4 2015 wilson v the queen press release (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 10/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’ s intention to resume living in New Zealand.[2014] NZCA 611 CA 351/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611). The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 August 2015 (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- sc10 2015greenfieldvchiefexecofmsdpress (PDF, 250 KB)
Additional document
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- scpwags2 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2017] NZSC 17 PROPRIETORS OF WAKATU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (PDF, 2.8 MB)
Case name
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Ross Winston Blackwell v Leith Roger Chick and Rosemary Chick and Edmonds Judd
Case number
SC 30/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ lack of mental capacity and unconscionable bargain defences in CA 481/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity in CA 476/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there was no causation as to the lawyer’ s negligent advice and the loss suffered by the deceased.[2015] NZCA 34 CA 481/2013; CA 476/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal in CA 481/2013 is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 February 2016 (PDF, 514 KB)
Media Releases
- sc30 2015banorvedmondsjudd (PDF, 253 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others
Case number
SC 38/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 30 (PDF, 404 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 40/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. [2015] NZCA 78 CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 November 2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- sportzonemvccpressth (PDF, 242 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
sportzonemvccpressth (PDF, 242 KB)
Page 32 of 67