Ortmann v United States of America

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 54/2018
[2018] NZSC 126

BETWEEN	MATHIAS ORTMANN First Applicant
BRAM VAN DER KOLK Second Applicant
FINN HABIB BATATO Third Applicant
AND	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA First Respondent
DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE Second Respondent

SC 55/2018
BETWEEN	FINN HABIB BATATO Applicant
AND	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent

SC 56/2018
BETWEEN	MATHIAS ORTMANN First Applicant
BRAM VAN DER KOLK Second Applicant
AND	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent

SC 57/2018
BETWEEN	KIM DOTCOM Applicant
AND	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent

SC 58/2018
BETWEEN	KIM DOTCOM Applicant
AND	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA First Respondent
DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	G M Illingworth QC, P J K Spring and A K Hyde for Messrs Ortmann and van der Kolk A G V Rogers for Mr Batato R M Mansfield and S L Cogan for Mr Dotcom K Raftery QC for United States of America
Judgment:	20 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
CTo the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.

___________________________________________________________________

The Registrar is instructed to set the appeals down for hearing in the first week of April.

Solicitors:
Keegan Alexander, Auckland for Messrs Ortmann and van der Kolk
Anderson Creagh Lai Limited, Auckland for Mr Dotcom
Crown Law Office, Wellington for United States of America

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has granted leave to appeal in the case of Ortmann and others versus the United States of America. The applicants, Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, Finn Habib Batato, and Kim Dotcom, sought to appeal against the New Zealand Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss their appeals. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appeals of Ortmann, van der Kolk, and Batato, except for the appeal in CA302/2015. The court considered whether the Court of Appeal had properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in declining leave to appeal for the applicants except for in the case of the appeal in CA302/2015. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal's decision to decline leave to appeal was within its discretion and the applicants had not demonstrated that the Court of Appeal had exercised its discretion improperly. The Supreme Court did, however, grant leave to appeal in relation to the appeal in CA302/2015. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not adequately considered the arguments presented by the applicants in that appeal, and that the case warranted further consideration.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal for Ortmann, van der Kolk, and Batato, except to the extent that the applications sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave. Leave to appeal was declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015. The Supreme Court instructed the Registrar to set the appeals down for hearing in the first week of April.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established