Supreme Court case information

Civil Appeal

The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board [2023] NZCA 504) on the question of the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
17 April 2024
______________________________________________________
A The application by Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou for leave to intervene is granted.
B Costs are reserved on this application and on the substantive hearing.
23 July 2024
______________________________________________________
A The application by Te Kāhui Takutai Moana o Ngā Whānau me Ngā Hapū o Te Whakatōhea for a prospective costs order against the Attorney-General is granted.
B The respondent must pay the applicants prospective costs of $97,500, collectively.
C The respondent must pay the applicants costs on the application of $7,500 together with usual disbursements.
20 September 2024
______________________________________________________
A The appeal (by the Attorney-General in relation to s 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011) is allowed.
B Costs are reserved.
2 December 2024
______________________________________________________
A The Attorney-General’s appeals on the navigable rivers issue and challenging the award of PCRs to Ngāti Muriwai are dismissed.
B With the qualification that the part of WKW’s appeal regarding the boundaries of CMT Order 1 does not need to be determined, WKW’s appeal is dismissed.
C Te Upokorehe’s appeals are dismissed.
D Ngāti Muriwai’s appeal is allowed on the terms set out below at [258].
E Ngāti Ruatākenga’s appeal challenging the award of PCRs to Ngāti Muirwai is dismissed.
F Kuatere Marae’s appeal is allowed on the terms set out below at [271].
G Te Kāhui’s appeal in relation to Whakaari and Te Paepae o Aotea is allowed. The question of whether the test for CMT under s 58 of MACA is met in regard to Whakaari and Te Paepae o Aotea is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.
H To the extent it remains live, Te Kahui’s appeal in relation to the decision to remit CMT Order 1 to the High Court is dismissed.
I CMT Order 2 is formally amended to capture the Ōhiwa Harbour in full.
J Whakatāne District Council, and Ngāti Muriwai and Kutarere Marae’s applications to adduce further evidence are allowed.
K The application by Te Kāhui to adduce further evidence is to be addressed by the High Court.
L The applications to file submissions out of time are allowed.
M Costs are reserved. If costs cannot be agreed, the parties should file memoranda on costs on or before Friday 10 October 2025.                                      
15 August 2025

Civil Appeal

The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board [2023] NZCA 504) on the question of the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
17 April 2024
________________________________________________
A The application by Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou for leave to intervene is granted.
B Costs are reserved on this application and on the substantive hearing.
23 July 2024
________________________________________________
A The application by Te Kāhui Takutai Moana o Ngā Whānau me Ngā Hapū o Te Whakatōhea for a prospective costs order against the Attorney-General is granted.
B The respondent must pay the applicants prospective costs of $97,500, collectively.
C The respondent must pay the applicants costs on the application of $7,500 together with usual disbursements.
20 September 2024
________________________________________
A The appeal (by the Attorney-General in relation to s 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011) is allowed.
B Costs are reserved.
2 December 2024
________________________________________
A The Attorney-General’s appeals on the navigable rivers issue and challenging the award of PCRs to Ngāti Muriwai are dismissed.
B With the qualification that the part of WKW’s appeal regarding the boundaries of CMT Order 1 does not need to be determined, WKW’s appeal is dismissed.
C Te Upokorehe’s appeals are dismissed.
D Ngāti Muriwai’s appeal is allowed on the terms set out below at [258].
E Ngāti Ruatākenga’s appeal challenging the award of PCRs to Ngāti Muirwai is dismissed.
F Kuatere Marae’s appeal is allowed on the terms set out below at [271].
G Te Kāhui’s appeal in relation to Whakaari and Te Paepae o Aotea is allowed. The question of whether the test for CMT under s 58 of MACA is met in regard to Whakaari and Te Paepae o Aotea is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.
H To the extent it remains live, Te Kahui’s appeal in relation to the decision to remit CMT Order 1 to the High Court is dismissed.
I CMT Order 2 is formally amended to capture the Ōhiwa Harbour in full.
J Whakatāne District Council, and Ngāti Muriwai and Kutarere Marae’s applications to adduce further evidence are allowed.
K The application by Te Kāhui to adduce further evidence is to be addressed by the High Court.
L The applications to file submissions out of time are allowed.
M Costs are reserved. If costs cannot be agreed, the parties should file memoranda on costs on or before Friday 10 October 2025.                                    
15 August 2025

Civil Appeal

A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (Chisnall v Attorney-General [2021] NZCA 616 and Chisnall v Attorney-General [2022] NZCA 24).
B The approved questions are as follows:
(a) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make declarations that Part 1A of the Parole Act 2002 [extended supervision orders] and the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 [public safety orders] are inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 [the Bill of Rights]; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct not to make declarations that extended supervision orders and public safety orders are inconsistent with ss 9, 22, 23(5), 25(a), (c) and (d), and 26(1) of the Bill of Rights.
22 June 2022
__________________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C We seek submissions from counsel on the form of the declarations of inconsistency, as set out at [269].
D Costs are reserved.
19 December 2024
__________________________________
A We make the declarations of inconsistency set out at [18].
B The appellants must pay the respondent one set of costs of $70,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
30 September 2025