Supreme Court of New Zealand - recent judgments: June 2025
Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd [2025] NZSC 68
26 June 2025
Successful appeal by the Rs against the amount awarded to them for negligence by PGGWREL, which had supplied incorrect reports of production levels achieved by a dairy farm purchased by the Rs.
The High Court had awarded the Rs $1.69m in damages. The Court of Appeal had reassessed the scope of PGGWREL’s duty of care and had reduced the award to $300,000.
Mills v Dalzell [2025] NZSC 67
17 June 2025
Unsuccessful application by M and another for leave to appeal against the striking out of their appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Siemer v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 65
17 June 2025
Unsuccessful application by S for review of a refusal by the Deputy Registrar to waive a filing fee.
BW v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] NZSC 66
16 June 2025
Successful application by BW for leave to appeal a finding by the Court of Appeal that the High Court had erred in law by concluding it would be oppressive to extradite BW to Australia.
The approved question was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal by the Commonwealth of Australia.
Rafiq v Auckland Transport [2025] NZSC 64
11 June 2025
Unsuccessful application by R for review of the Registrar's decision not to waive the filing fee for R's application for recall of a judgment.
Rafiq v Auckland Transport [2025] NZSC 63
11 June 2025
Unsuccessful application by R for review of the Registrar's decision not to waive the filing fee for R's application for recall of a judgment.
H v R [2025] NZSC 62
10 June 2025
Successful appeal by H against (a) conviction for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and (b) refusal of name suppression.
H had initially been charged in the Youth Court, where he had automatic name suppression. The proceedings were transferred to the High Court after he was also charged with being party to murder, in relation to the same incident. He was acquitted at trial on the murder charge. Was convicted and discharged on the injuring charge and permanent name suppression had been refused by the High Court.