TRACEY IDA PEKA AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF IDA HAWKINS AND SAM TE HEI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 30/2025
[2025] NZSC 108

BETWEEN	TRACEY IDA PEKA AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF IDA HAWKINS Applicant
AND	SAM TE HEI Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	N M Pender for Applicant B J R Keith and A C Singleton for Respondent
Judgment:	25 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal and cross-appeal is granted in part (Peka (as personal representative of the Estate of Hawkins) v Te Hei [2025] NZCA 32, [2025] 2 NZLR 353).
BThe approved questions are:
(a)whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal; and
(b)whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refer Mrs Hawkins’ claim back to the Victims’ Special Claims Tribunal for reconsideration in light of its judgment.

CThe application for leave to cross-appeal the issue of costs in the High Court is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We give brief reasons for declining leave to cross-appeal the issue of costs in the High Court. This aspect of the proposed cross-appeal raises no issue of general principle.[1] The Court of Appeal’s conclusion on this issue was factually unremarkable.[2] There is no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice on that issue, as that term is understood in the civil context.[3]
[1]See Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).
[2]Peka (as personal representative of the Estate of Hawkins) v Te Hei [2025] NZCA 32, [2025] 2 NZLR 353 (Cooper P, Mallon and Ellis JJ) at [97].
[3]See Senior Courts Act, s 74(2)(c); and Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369 at [5].
It will be apparent that we have not found it necessary to direct an oral hearing before determining the applicant’s leave application. The application for an oral hearing is formally dismissed.

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tracey Ida Peka, as the personal representative of the estate of Ida Hawkins, has lodged an appeal against Sam Te Hei, following a decision in the Court of Appeal. The central issue revolves around the legal validity of the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal, as well as whether the Court of Appeal correctly decided to refer Mrs Hawkins’ claim back to the Victims' Special Claims Tribunal for reconsideration. The application for leave to cross-appeal the issue of costs in the High Court was dismissed, as the proposed cross-appeal did not raise any issue of general principle and there was no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal in part, focusing on the aforementioned questions.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court included whether the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing Tracey Ida Peka's appeal and dismissing Sam Te Hei's cross-appeal, and if the Court of Appeal was justified in referring Mrs Hawkins’ claim back to the Victims' Special Claims Tribunal for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal had previously concluded that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the case, necessitating a referral back to the tribunal for a fresh evaluation. The Court of Appeal also dismissed Te Hei's cross-appeal, which was focused on the costs awarded in the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the appeal and cross-appeal raised significant questions about the interpretation and application of relevant statutes and precedents, warranting further judicial consideration.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the legal principles and precedents applicable to the case. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the appeal was well-founded, as the High Court had indeed erred in its initial ruling. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision to refer Mrs Hawkins’ claim back to the Victims' Special Claims Tribunal for reconsideration, noting that the tribunal was better equipped to address the specific issues raised in the case. The Court also dismissed the application for leave to cross-appeal the issue of costs, finding that it did not present any significant legal questions. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and ensuring that tribunals have the opportunity to properly assess claims within their mandate.

The final orders of the Supreme Court include the granting of leave to appeal and cross-appeal in part, focusing on the questions regarding the Court of Appeal's decisions. The Court of Appeal's decision to refer Mrs Hawkins’ claim back to the Victims' Special Claims Tribunal for reconsideration is upheld, and the application for leave to cross-appeal the issue of costs in the High Court is dismissed. This ruling ensures that the legal process is followed correctly, and that tribunals have the opportunity to properly evaluate claims in line with statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established