| Supreme Court of New Zealand | |
|---|---|
| Te Kōti Mana Nui (Māori) | |
 | |
 Entrance to Supreme Court building inWellington | |
 | |
| Established | 1 January 2004 |
| Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
| Location | 85 Lambton Quay,Wellington, New Zealand |
| Composition method | Appointed by theGovernor-General on behalf ofKing Charles III on the advice of thePrime Minister (chief justice) andAttorney-General (justices)[not verified in body] |
| Authorised by | Senior Courts Act 2016 |
| Judge term length | Retire at age of 70 years (Senior Courts Act 2016, s 133) |
| Number of positions | 6 |
| Website | www |
| Chief Justice | |
| Currently | Dame Helen Winkelmann |
| Since | 14 March 2019 |
|
|---|
|
Related topics |
 New Zealand portal |
TheSupreme Court of New Zealand (Māori:Te Kōti Mana Nui,lit. 'Court of GreatMana') is the highest court and thecourt of last resort ofNew Zealand. It formally came into being on 1 January 2004 and sat for the first time on 1 July 2004. It replaced the right of appeal to theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in London. It was created with the passing of theSupreme Court Act 2003, on 15 October 2003. At the time, the creation of the Supreme Court and the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council were controversial constitutional changes in New Zealand. The Supreme Court Act 2003 was repealed on 1 March 2017 and superseded by theSenior Courts Act 2016.
The current Supreme Court should not be confused with theHigh Court of New Zealand, which was known as the Supreme Court until 1980. The High Court, New Zealand’ssuperior court, was established in 1841 as the “Supreme Court of New Zealand”. Its name was changed in anticipation of the eventual creation of this final court of appeal within New Zealand.
The inaugural bench (with the exception of thechief justice, who had automatic appointment) were the most senior judges of theNew Zealand Court of Appeal at the time. Their appointment to the new court was said to have been based on seniority and merit. The maximum bench under statute is six judges.[1]
Several acting judges have also been appointed to sit whenever a permanent judge was unable to do so due to illness or a conflict of interest. These judges were appointed from the retired judges of the Court of Appeal and have included Justices SirJohn Henry, SirTed Thomas, former President of the Court of Appeal SirIvor Richardson and former Chief Justice SirThomas Eichelbaum. Acting judges only sit on substantive appeals, and not applications for leave, due to the requirement for appeals to be hearden banc by five judges.
On 4 May 2005,Attorney-GeneralMichael Cullen announced the appointment of Justice SirJohn McGrath of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court bench as its sixth permanent judge. On 21 February 2006, the Honourable SirNoel Anderson (at the time President of the Court of Appeal) was appointed to the Supreme Court. Thus the promotion of the most senior Court of Appeal member continued. This practice was broken with the appointment of JusticeBill Wilson in December 2007 after having served less than a year as a judge of the Court of Appeal.
Under section 94 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 an existing judge can only be appointed a Supreme Court justice if already a member of the Court of Appeal or the High Court. If the person is not a member of either of those courts, the candidate must be appointed as a High Court judge at the same time as taking office in the Supreme Court.[2]
While the suggestion of ending appeals to thePrivy Council had been around since theStatute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947,[3] proposals to end appeals to the Privy Council began in the late 1970s, when a Royal Commission on the judiciary canvassed arguments for replacing the Privy Council.[4] In the early 1980s, Minister of JusticeJim McLay suggested their abolition.[5] Proposals for an indigenous final appellate court can be traced back to 1985. In 1996, Attorney-GeneralPaul East proposed to end the status of thePrivy Council as the country's highest court of appeal. The proposal got as far as a bill being introduced into Parliament. However, this bill met with little support from within the National Party, and the bill was not carried over by the next Parliament following the1996 general election.[5]
The policy was resurrected in 1999 by theFifth Labour Government. A discussion paper,Reshaping New Zealand's Appeal Structure attracted 70 submissions.[4] A year later a Ministerial Action Group was formed to assist Ministers in designing the purpose, structure and make-up of a final court of appeal. The Group's report,Replacing the Privy Council: A New Supreme Court was published in April 2002,[6] before the general election a few months later.[4]
On 9 December 2002, after the Labour government's re-election at the2002 general election,Attorney-GeneralMargaret Wilson introduced theSupreme Court Bill to create the Supreme Court and abolish appeals to thePrivy Council.[4] A Campaign for the Privy Council was established to lobby against the abolition of appeals. Many business and community groups joined the opposition to the ending of appeals. TheMonarchist League of New Zealand opposed the abolition of appeals, stating:
Most lawyers are opposed to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, and doubtless will continue to do so until a more satisfactory justification is given for the abandonment of a tribunal which costs the New Zealand taxpayer nothing, and which gives us access to some of the finest legal minds in the common law world. Many Maori also see this proposal as a retrograde step, both by removing an impartial tribunal to which they have hitherto been able to appeal, and by cutting another link with the Crown.[7]
Margaret Wilson argued in favour of the bill, stating:
When reviewing the legal needs of the community appeals to the Privy Council seemed increasingly anomalous. It was anomalous because of the narrow range of cases that actually were appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council itself recognised that some cases it considered were better settled by a New Zealand court and referred back for decision. Its precedent value was therefore quite limited. Few cases got to the Privy Council because of the costs involved, and because in some areas, such as employment and environment law, the statutes barred such appeals.[8]
At select committee, the bill attracted numerous submissions for and against creating the Supreme Court. Notable supporters of the Supreme Court were former President of the Court of Appeal, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and Privy CouncillorLord Cooke of Thorndon and former Prime Minister SirGeoffrey Palmer, while most senior lawyers were opposed to the change.[4] The Monarchist League complained the majority of members of the select committee were motivated by a "republican agenda".[9]
Opposition parties had called unsuccessfully for a national referendum on the creation of the Supreme Court. While the bill was before the select committee, Auckland lawyer Dennis J Gates launched a petition for a non-bindingcitizens initiated referendum on 3 April 2003, asking the question "Should all rights of appeal to the Privy Council be abolished?".[10] The petition failed to gain the 310,000 signatures of registered electors needed and lapsed on 2 July 2004.
The Supreme Court Bill passed its third reading 63 to 53.[11] The governingLabour andProgressive parties, supported by theGreens, voted in favour, while theNational,New Zealand First,ACT New Zealand, andUnited Future parties voted against. It received Royal Assent on 17 October 2003, with commencement on 1 January 2004.
In 2008, National leaderJohn Key (then the leader of the opposition) ruled out any abolition of the Supreme Court and return to the Privy Council.[12] The Key Government eventually repealed the Supreme Court Act 2003 and replaced it with the Senior Courts Act 2016, as part of a modernisation of judicature legislation. The reform was supported by National, Labour, the Greens, the Māori Party, ACT and United Future, and was opposed by New Zealand First.[13]
One issue that was particularly contentious as the bill was being debated inParliament was the appointment of judges to the court, with opposition parties claiming that the Attorney-General would make partisan choices.[8] These concerns were because the entire bench was to be appointed simultaneously, and no clear statement had been made about how they would be selected. However, the level of concern was considerably lessened when Wilson announced that the appointments would be based on merit and seniority. Appointments to the court were expected and unsurprising. The most senior justices on the Court of Appeal were appointed to the new court.
One of the grounds advanced for the creation of the court was that it would allow more people to have access to the country's highestappellate court. From 1851 until 2002, the Privy Council made 268 decisions relating to New Zealand. In the ten years from 1992–2002, only 21 decisions had been allowed with respect to New Zealand.[6] The Supreme Court hears many more cases than were heard by theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council due to its jurisdiction being considerably broader. For example, cases in the areas of employment, criminal and family law can be heard by the Supreme Court, whereas previously cases in both areas of law could normally progress no further than theCourt of Appeal. The proximity of the court is another factor that is likely to contribute to it hearing an increased number of appeals and also allows appeals to be heard and determined considerably faster than under the former system.
The court has heard many applications forleave. It has also heard many substantive appeals. Notable substantive cases include:
The Supreme Court sits inWellington. Until the court's new $80.7 million home was built—beside and expanding into the historic High Court building—the court was housed in temporary facilities located in the High Court in Wellington with offices located inOld Government Buildings. The building was formally opened on 18 January 2010 byPrince William.[16]
The upper portion of the building's exterior is surrounded by a bronze screen and red glass facade. The forms were inspired by the intertwining ofrātā andpōhutukawa trees. The interior follows a similar theme; the court room is oval shaped with tiled walls mimicking the shape of akauri cone.[17]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Unlike final appellate courts in some other countries, there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. All appeals are by leave granted by the Supreme Court.[2] No lower courts may grant leave to appeal. Leave is granted or declined based on a number of factors listed in section 74 of the Senior Courts Act, with the overarching principle being that it must be necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear the appeal. Leave applications may be determined by any two permanent judges of the court based on the written submission of the parties without an oral hearing; however, they are normally determined by a panel of three. The judges determining the application can decide to hold an oral hearing if they wish.
This system is also in place in the United Kingdom where theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom, also must grant leave for appeal for cases to be heard before it. The same is true for appeals to theCourt of Final Appeal ofHong Kong. Similarly, most litigants seeking to appeal to theConstitutional Court of South Africa,Supreme Court of the United States,Supreme Court of Canada orHigh Court of Australia require leave before their case can be heard – although there are some exceptions to this in the latter three courts.
Since its foundation, the Supreme Court has been subject to "unprecedented public criticism". The quality of several Supreme Court judgments have been criticised in New Zealand and overseas, and concerns expressed about the impact on the country's case law and international reputation. The major criticisms are the Supreme Court's lack of experience and its membership being drawn initially from the Court of Appeal. Defenders of the court argue that it has provided easier access to the courts. They also note that the argument that the court would not be independent has been disproved by the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule decisions of the Court of Appeal.[18]
Prior to discontinuation the Privy Council heard up to 12 cases from New Zealand a year. From its creation through May 2012, the Supreme Court heard an average of 29 substantive appeals annually.[18]
| Judge | Portrait | Took office | Mandatory retirement[19] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chief JusticeDame Helen Winkelmann | .jpg) | 14 March 2019 | 2032 |
| 2 | JusticeDame Susan Glazebrook | .jpg) | 6 August 2012[20] | 2026 |
| 3 | JusticeDame Ellen France | .jpg) | 22 July 2016[21] | 2026 |
| 4 | JusticeSir Joe Williams | .jpg) | 2 May 2019[22] | 2031 |
| 5 | JusticeSir Stephen Kós | .jpg) | 22 April 2022[23] | 2029 |
| 6 | JusticeForrest Miller | 20 December 2023[24] | 2027 |
| Judge | Portrait | Took office | Left office |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chief JusticeDame Sian Elias |  | 1 January 2004[25] | 12 March 2019[26] |
| JusticeSir Thomas Gault | 1 January 2004[27] | 8 April 2006[26] | |
| JusticeSir Kenneth Keith | .jpg) | 1 January 2004[27] | 18 November 2005[28] |
| JusticeSir Peter Blanchard | 1 January 2004[27] | 24 June 2012[26] | |
| JusticeSir Andrew Tipping | 1 January 2004[27] | 21 August 2012[26] | |
| JusticeSir John McGrath | 3 May 2005[29] | 9 March 2015[26] | |
| JusticeSir Noel Anderson | 16 February 2006[30] | 5 May 2008[31] | |
| Bill Wilson | 1 February 2008[32] | 5 November 2010[33] | |
| JusticeSir William Young | .jpg) | 1 July 2010[34] | 13 April 2022[26] |
| JusticeSir Robert Chambers | 1 February 2012[35] | 21 May 2013[36] | |
| JusticeSir Terence Arnold | .jpg) | 10 June 2013[37] | 12 April 2017[38] |
| JusticeSir Mark O'Regan | .jpg) | 1 September 2014[39] | 29 November 2023[40] |
| Sources | | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constitution of New Zealand | |||||||
| Courts of New Zealand |
| ||||||
| Education | |||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |