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
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case name
Tony Gordon Best v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. [2015] NZCA 159 CA 254/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 122 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2015] NZSC 167 [3 November 2015] (PDF, 111 KB)
Substantive judgment
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2016] NZSC 122 [8 September 2016] (PDF, 434 KB)
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial – whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’ s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt. [2015] NZCA 162 CA 58/2014[2012] NZCA 559 CA 262/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 83 (PDF, 244 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2016] NZSC 83 [6 July 2016] (PDF, 210 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
The Queen v SSC
Case number
SC 67/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admissions in response to police questioning – Whether exclusion of evidence is proportionate to the police impropriety. [2015] NZCA 241
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (C v R [2015] NZCA 241).The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to quash the High Court’s order that the latter part (commencing at 2.14 pm) of the interview between Mr C and the police on 28 March 2014 is admissible at his trial.
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
Date of hearing
10 December 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- trustpowervcommirpress (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Barrie James Skinner v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 573/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC. In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321 CA 238/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 - 15 April 2016 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] 95 (PDF, 248 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)
Case number
SC 107/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. [2015] NZCA 390 CA 111/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 April 2016 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 89 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 33 of 67