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
Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and Body Corporate 341188 and others
Case number
SC 108/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. [2015] NZCA 393 CA 185/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 June 2016 (PDF, 624 KB)
Media Releases
- ehdmr (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen
Case number
SC 115/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether a tailored demeanour direction should have been given at trial – Whether evidence of breach of a police safety order was admissible as propensity evidence and whether a “proper use” direction was required in respect of that evidence[2015] NZCA 434 CA 597/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:-no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and-evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 June 2016 (PDF, 477 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 121 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
David Ingram Rowley v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2015
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 572/2012
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 ¶22-011).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
The Queen v P
Case number
SC 131/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the statements made by P in his video interview after the interview recommenced at 4pm on 4 June 2014 should be admissible – Whether the evidence of the walk-through of the scene and further statements made by Mr P to police on 6 June 2014 should be admissible.[2015] NZCA 530 CA 474/2015
Result
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
Hearing date
21 April 2016
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Judgment appealed from
P v R [2015] NZCA 530 11 Nov 2015_ not publicly available
Case name
Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the evidence from the complainant’ s mother was not expert evidence.[2013] NZCA 593 CA 100/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 June 2014 (PDF, 313 KB)
Media Releases
- sc 2 2014 taiatini v r media release (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Quake Outcasts v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Fowler Developments Limited
Case number
SC 5/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Government had lawfully established the residential red zone in Christchurch through the use of its common law or third source powers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creation of the residential red zone did not affect the legal rights and liberties of the affected residents such that recourse to the third source was available – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Government’ s offers to purchase the properties of the applicants and the third respondent under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) could be implemented without compliance with the regime set out in the Act for a planned and co-ordinated earthquake recovery approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the different treatment of the applicants and third respondent was not in itself a reviewable error as there was a rational basis for differentiating between insured and uninsured land owners. [2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 - 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fowler Developments Limited v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 8/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a rational basis for the respondent, in making the September 2012 offer to purchase the applicant’s land, to differentiate between insured residential property owners and uninsured owners.[2013] NZCA 588 CA571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
DH v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to admit expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to the expert evidence was adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to evidence of no prior convictions was appropriate.[2013] NZCA 670 CA 87/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
2 May 2014
_____________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
2 May 2014
_____________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Media Releases
- dhkohai jointpress release (PDF, 254 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
DH (SC9/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 50 [2 May 2014] (PDF, 8 KB)
Substantive judgment
DH (SC 9/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 35 [16 April 2015] (PDF, 366 KB)
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19 CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- sc25 2014kimdotcomorsvagpressr (PDF, 134 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
RJL v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 122(2)(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the District Court Judge was entitled to decline to give a warning under s 122(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s ruling that the photograph evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the way the District Court Judge restricted the manner in which the applicant gave evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.[2013] NZCA 191 CA 707/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
L v R [2014] NZSC 107 [8 August 2014] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
Page 34 of 67