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
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.[2013] NZHC 1900 CRI 2012 009 11872
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHAPMAN v R [2013] NZSC 83 [23 August 2013] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 August 2013
Case name
Arcadia Homes Limited (in liquidation) v More To This Life Limited and Andrew George Clark as trustees of the Ultimate Lifestyle Trust.
Case number
SC 75/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Director’s approval clauses – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determinations relating to the effect of a director’s approval clause in an agreement for sale and purchase that has been signed, and the nature and scope of a director’s duties under such a clause.[2012] NZCA 286 CA 149/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is refused.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 November 2013.
Case name
Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.[2012] NZCA 291 CA 811/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 March 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
Case name
Stephen John Lawler v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2013
Summary
Criminal – appeal against sentence – appeal against conviction - whether the Court of Appeal erred in not calling for further reports regarding the applicant’s fitness to stand trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions and the sentence of preventive detention – whether the Court of Appeal rightly refused a recusal application.[2012] NZCA 308 CA 777/2010; CA 655/2012; CA 656/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined.
3 October 2013
Case name
Philip John Gash v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether or not the trial Judge erred in amending the indictment.[2012] NZCA 309 CA 808/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 November 2013
Case name
Acme Engineering Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 79/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 783/2012
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
26 September 2013
Case name
Fences and Kerbs Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 80/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 773/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date: 18 March 2014 (PDF, 13 KB)
Case name
Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 81/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 864/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date: 18 March 2014 (PDF, 13 KB)
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Case name
The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust v Church Property Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 83/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trust law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the terms of the trust arising from the public subscription of funds for the erection of Christchurch Cathedral were irrelevant to determining the current obligations of the trustees or terms of the trust, and that the terms of the Cathedral Trust are to be found exclusively in the Provincial Ordinances authorising transfer of the land for the establishment of Christchurch Cathedral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the terms of the Cathedral Trust allow the trustees to decide to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral and do not require the trustees to maintain the existence of the Cathedral or repair it in order that it can continue to operate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first respondent was free to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral notwithstanding the terms of the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Act 2003 and its preceding legislation. [2013] NZCA 331 CA 57/2013
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the first respondent $2,500.
2 December
Page 149 of 243