Supreme Court case information

Civil Appeal 

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2024] NZCA 557).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that negotiations prior to the compulsory acquisition of land for essential works, under s 18 of the Public Works Act 1981, may be undertaken by an accredited contractor rather than by the Respondent personally (or an official of Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand with delegated authority by the Respondent).
C Counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.                          
19 May 2025

___________________________________________________________
A The application of counsel assisting the Court for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The Court answers the question for which leave was granted in the following way: the negotiations function under s 18(1)(d) of the Public Works Act 1981 may be performed by an accredited contractor, rather than the Minister personally or the Minister’s delegate within Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), provided the accredited contractor holds delegated authority to perform that function.
C The Court finds that LINZ officials delegated the negotiations function outside the Public Service in this case but did not follow the necessary statutory processes.  The appellants did not refuse to negotiate, for purposes of s 18(2), by refusing to deal with the accredited contractor.
D The appeal is allowed accordingly.  The proceeding is remitted to the High Court to determine what relief, if any, is appropriate.
E The respondent must pay the appellants one set of costs of $3,000 plus usual disbursements. 
18 December 2025

Civil Appeal 

A    Kea Investments Ltd’s application for leave to appeal is granted (Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901).
B    The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions awarded to Kea Investments Ltd in the High Court.
C    Counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.
D    The applications to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
E    The application to extend the stay in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 686, (2024) 26 PRNZ 667 is granted pending determination of the appeal. 
 4 July 2025
_______________________________________
A The application for adjournment is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.                                                                                
30 September 2025
_______________________________________

A The appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 is allowed.
B The orders made by the High Court in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156(a)(i) - (iv)], and in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7], are reinstated.
C Costs are reserved. 
10 November 2025
_______________________________________________________

A The application by the appellant to adduce updating evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The orders made by the High Court in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156(a)(i)]–[156(a)(iv)], and in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7], are reinstated.
D The first, second, fourth and fifth respondents must pay the appellant costs of $250,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
E The first respondent must pay the liquidators of the second respondent costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
F The confidential version of the affidavit of Martin Craig Smith filed in support of the appellant’s costs application shall not be disclosed to the Respondents or persons searching the Court file.
G The application for stay of enforcement is dismissed.   
31 July 2026

Criminal Appeal

A Mr Hoggart’s application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The applications for leave to appeal are granted in part ([W] v R [2023] NZCA 155). The approved questions are:
1 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that a media take down order was not required in the circumstances of this case.
2 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the verdicts were not unreasonable in light of admissible evidence relating to the potential culpability of Lester Hamilton (deceased).
C The applications for leave to appeal are otherwise dismissed.
D Interim order suppressing the name of W and any identifying particulars made on 9 June 2023 is to continue until further order.
12 December 2023

_____________________________________________

A The appeals are allowed.
B The appellants’ convictions are set aside.
C An order is made under ss 233(3)(a) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 that judgments of acquittal be entered.
D The interim order suppressing Mr Wilson’s name and any identifying particulars made on 9 June 2023 is to expire on the release of this judgment.
7 July 2026