Supreme Court case information

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing. 

Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.

All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.

Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.

28 November 2025

Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)

All years

Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977   Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A     The appeals are allowed.  
B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  
D     Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 102 [24 October 2013] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 7 [18 February 2015] (PDF, 684 KB)
Case name
Stuart Murray Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 52/2013
Summary
Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to hold that the High Court’s determination of the Chief Executive of the Department of Correction’s application for an extended supervision order was premature – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court did have a proper basis for making the extended supervision order.[2013] NZCA 144   CA 482/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 August 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 53/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no right of appeal against the High Court decision refusing an application for recall of an earlier judgment.[2013] NZCA 202   CA 713/2012
Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 November 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 54/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review decision of the – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss an application to review that decision.[2013] NZCA 204
Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 October 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 55/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Review of a Registrar’s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address whether the Court of Appeal Registrar has power to refuse an application for filing a notice of appeal or review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Court of Appeal’s review powers under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 are expressly limited to orders made by a single Judge pursuant to s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).[2013] NZCA 205   CA 422/2012
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.

 

14 October 2013
Case name
Noel Lee Bland v The Queen
Case number
SC 56/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether applicant is entitled to a reduction in sentence where assistance is given to the authorities post-sentence and where this matter was not raised before the Court of Appeal.   [2012] NZCA 165  CA 582/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal is refused.
7 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BLAND v R [2013] NZSC 93 [7 October 2013] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
Aaron Patrick John Ellis v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2013
Summary
Criminal – Crimes Act 1961, s 306 – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 338 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s appeal against conviction under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the High Court trial was in breach of the principles of natural justice. [2012] NZCA 185  CA 720/2011
Dates
A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B   Leave is reserved to renew the application.

 

8 October 2013
Case name
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited trading as Zurich New Zealand v Cognition Education Limited
Case number
SC 58/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the test for whether there is a dispute for the purposes of a stay application under Article 8 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 is whether there is an “arguable defence” and, as such, is the inverse of the test to apply for a summary judgment.[2013] NZCA 180    CA 867/2012
Result
Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that there will be no dispute for the purposes of art 8(1) of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 unless the defendant has an arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff’s claim as is sufficient to resist an application for summary
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND v COGNITION EDUCATION LIMITED [2014] NZSC 188 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 217 KB)
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2014] NZSC 55 [7 May 2014] (PDF, 156 KB)
Recall judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 369 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost :DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 138 [24 September 2015] (PDF, 119 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
Brett Stuart Wellm v The Queen
Case number
SC 63/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in length. [2009] NZCA 175  CA 581/2008
Dates

Notice of Abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

18 November 2013.
Page 174 of 270