Supreme Courts roundup 13 to 20 March 2014
Decisions, proceedings and news from the highest courts in common law jurisdictions in the last week are as follows:
Supreme Court of New Zealand
Slavich v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 22 (19 March 2014, 2 pages). Application for amendment of judgment [2013] NZSC 130 and its recall declined.
Gibbston Downs Wines Ltd v Property Ventures Ltd (In receivership and liquidation) [2014] NZSC 21 (17 March 2014, 3 pages). Applications for leave to appeal from Court of Appeal [2013] NZCA 546 dismissed. Statutory demands – General security agreement - Whether liquidator entitled to initiate proceedings to recover debts.
Houghton v AIG Insurance New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 20 (18 March 2014, 2 pages). Costs order made in Court of Appeal set aside. Costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal are (absent agreement) to be set by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment on the appeal.
Firm P1 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd t/a Zurich New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZSC 19 (17 March 2014). Application for leave to appeal from Court of Appeal granted. Approved question “Whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.”
High Court of Australia
No decisions released during the period.
Supreme Court of Canada
No decisions released during the period.
Supreme Court of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council; P and Q (by their litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council [2014] USKC 19 (19 March 2014). Appeals from Court of Appeal allowed (majority). European Convention on Human Rights – Article 5 – P, a 39-year-old man with severe physical and learning disabilities lacks the mental capacity to make decisions as to his care and residence – In November 2009 by court order he was placed in a care residence – It is undisputed that his care package is in his best interests – The dispute is whether that package imposes such restrictions upon P that he is deprived of his liberty –What is the correct approach to determining whether a person is deprived of his liberty under Article 5?
Supreme Court of the United States
No decisions released during the period.
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
No decisions released during the period.
A summary of decisions on applications for permission to appeal made during February 2014 is available here.