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
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992   CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted.  The question of law for determination on the appeal is:Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________

The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs. 
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INC v NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON CO LTD [2013] NZSC 101 [18 October 2013] (PDF, 48 KB)
Substantive judgment
SUSTAIN OUR SOUNDS INCORPORATED v THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZSC 40 [17 April 2014] (PDF, 428 KB)
Supreme court decision
cost: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATED v THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZSC 167 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 170 KB)
Hearing

19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

 
Case name
Mark Heteraka v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Identification evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 45(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act.[2013] NZHCA 339   CA 592/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MARK HETERAKA v R [2013] NZSC 119 [13 November 2013] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 November 2013. 
Case name
William Duffield McKee v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 8(2) – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not mean that persons who are legitimately able to be prescribed cannabis for medical purposes should be able to grow the plant for this purpose, given the absence of lawful retail suppliers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not allow a GreenCross card holder lawfully to supply another GreenCross card holder with cannabis grown for medicinal purposes – Constitutional challenge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the courts cannot overrule, repeal, revoke, amend or not apply provisions of the law which are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or which contravene cl 29 of the Magna Carta 1297 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not misdirect the jury – Entrapment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the undercover officer did not go further than creating an “unexceptional opportunity” for the applicant to offend.[2013] NZHCA 387   CA 781/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAM DUFFIELD MCKEE v R [2013] NZSC 122 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

14 November 2013.
Case name
John Douglas McKenzie v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act ss 8, 12A and 27(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “statement” in s 27(1) of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply the “co-conspirator’s rule” under s 12A of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable.[2013] NZHCA 378   CA 795/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DOUGLAS MCKENZIE v R [2013] NZSC 109 [11 November 2013] (PDF, 69 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is declined.

11 November 2013
Case name
CT v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient consideration to ss 25(a) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in deciding that no miscarriage of justice had arisen because of delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the significance of the evidence unavailable to the defendant because of the time that had elapsed between the offending and the criminal proceedings.  [2013] NZCA 383   CA 188/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.  
9 December 2013
_______________
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
CT v R [2013] NZSC 142 [9 December 2013] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
CT (SC 88/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 155 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 268 KB)
Case name
Save Kapiti Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 89/2013
Summary
Civil – Resource Consent – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 171, 104 – whether the High Court erred in determining that permitted activities and unimplemented resource consents do not fall within the scope of “environment” for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) – whether the High Court correctly applied the tests set out in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate.[2013] NZHC 2104     Civ 2013 485 724
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SAVE KAPITI INCORPORATED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2013] NZSC 123 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 60 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

14 November 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 90/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 206   CA 362/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements as fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the respondents.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY and KORDA MENTHA [2013] NZSC 114 [14 November 2013 (PDF, 52 KB)
Recall judgment
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY [2013] NZSC 137 [4 December 2013] (PDF, 10 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General of New Zealand
Case number
SC 91/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal made material errors of fact and law in dismissing the applicant’s application to review the Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 391   CA 319/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZSC 116 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 68 KB)
Dates

A The application 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 respondent.

14 November 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 92/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 390   CA 166/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY & ANOR [2013] NZSC 115 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 54 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (as fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondents.

14 November 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Helen Diana Winkelmann
Case number
SC 93/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there is a right to apply under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 for review of a judgment reviewing a Registrar’ s decision regarding security for costs CA 712/20122
Result
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 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 113 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 53 KB)
Recall judgment
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 136 [4 December 2013] (PDF, 10 KB)
Page 177 of 270