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.
14 May 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024) – Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 92 KB)
All years
Case name
K v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2016
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. [2016] NZCA 259 CA115/2016
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
16 August 2016
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
16 August 2016
Judgments
Decision not available
Case name
Green Growth No. 2 Limited v Queen Elizabeth The Second National Trust
Case number
SC 84/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to rectification of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the covenant was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s notification of the covenant was not wrongful in terms of s 81 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. [2016] NZCA 308 CA47/2015
Result
A The appeal is allowed to the extent only that the order for rectification is set aside.
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2018 (PDF, 547 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 75 (PDF, 68 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors
Case number
SC 89/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process.[2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 March 2017 (PDF, 360 KB)
Media Releases
- pwmr (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that information obtained from a third party without a search warrant or production order is admissible as evidence in the applicant’ s trial. [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- swpr (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 97/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 February 2017 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- sc97 2016lmr (PDF, 263 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 23 November 2017 (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- sc98 2016aromr (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lakes International Golf Management Limited and The Lakes International Golf Course Limited v Hartley Clendon Vincent
Case number
SC 99/2016
Summary
Civil Proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting a covenant. [2016] NZCA 382 CA 699/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Vincent v Lakes International Golf Management Ltd [2016] NZCA 382).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 March 2017 (PDF, 682 KB)
Media Releases
- sc99 2016mrlv (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 106/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- sc106 107 2016mr (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Minister of Conservation v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited
Case number
SC 107/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- sc106 107 2016mr (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 30 of 67