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.
29 April 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 26 April 2024) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 26 April 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 134 KB)
All years
Case name
An Li Tao v Strata Title Administration Ltd, Jigar Pandya and Body Corporate 198693
Case number
SC 109/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to dispense with or reduce security for costs. [2016] NZCA 437 CA226/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 November 2016
9 November 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dillin Pakai v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the jury verdicts were not unreasonable as the jury could reasonably have rejected that the applicants were acting in self defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions on youth and party liability were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law does not recognise a partial defence of excessive force – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor had not improperly impeached the credibility of a defence witness – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that communications between the applicants were lawfully intercepted and so were admissible as evidence at trial.[2016] NZCA 343 CA663/2014
Result
A The time for filing the applications for leave to appeal is extended.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
8 March 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
8 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DILLIN PAKAI v R [2017] NZSC 27 8 March 2017 (PDF, 83 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Shane Pierre Harrison v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the jury verdicts were not unreasonable as the jury could reasonably have rejected that the applicants were acting in self defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions on youth and party liability were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law does not recognise a partial defence of excessive force – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor had not improperly impeached the credibility of a defence witness – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that communications between the applicants were lawfully intercepted and so were admissible as evidence at trial. [2016] NZCA 343 CA554/2014
Result
A The time for filing the applications for leave to appeal is extended.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 8 March 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 8 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DILLIN PAKAI v R [2017] NZSC 27 8 March 2017 (PDF, 83 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Morris Burton Suckling v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeals against conviction and sentence.[2016] NZCA 187 CA468/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
4 October 2016
B There is no order for costs.
4 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Samuel Owen Weenink v The Queen
Case number
SC 113/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice due to inconsistency of verdicts – Whether fresh evidence gives rise to a miscarriage of justice. [2016] NZCA 667 CA17/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Morton v R [2013] NZCA 667 not available__
Case name
Dinh Tu Do v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 114/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the order made by the District Court Judge under s 65B of the Land Transport Act 1998 did not operate retrospectively – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the sentencing Judge was not required to give a warning at the time of the first offence that a s 65B order could be made if a second offence was later committed. [2016] NZCA 420 CA600/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 February 2017
13 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kawarau Village Holdings Limited and Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Limited (in receivership) v Ho Kok Sun, Peninsula Road Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Russell McVeagh
Case number
SC 115/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of a sale and purchase agreement – Whether there was breach of an essential obligation – Whether the purchasers were required to settle the agreement when called upon.NZCA 427 CA105/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Sun and Ors v Peninsula Road Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2016] NZCA 427).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.
21 December 2016
_______________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.
21 December 2016
_______________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 April 2017 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- khmr (PDF, 252 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
NR v MR and Jackson Russell and District Court at Auckland
Case number
SC 116/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the applicant’s appeal was consistent with the principles of natural justice. [2016] NZCA 429 CA461/2014
Result
A The applications for recusal and leave to appeal are dismissed.
B Costs of $5,000 are awarded to the first respondent.
6 December 2016
B Costs of $5,000 are awarded to the first respondent.
6 December 2016
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NR v MR [2016] NZSC 160 [6 December 2016] (PDF, 89 KB)
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the use of representative charges covering 10–12 years was unfair.[2016] NZCA 235 CA 561/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 10 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
T (SC 117/2016) v R [2017] NZSC 6 10 February 2017 (PDF, 78 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2016) from CRI 2015-485-52, High Court at Christchurch
Case number
SC 118/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the correct remedy was the quashing of the defendant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 417 CA663/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2016) [2016] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 March 2017 (PDF, 243 KB)
Media Releases
- sc118 2016mr (PDF, 310 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 108 of 242