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
Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson
Case number
SC 50/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally was not relationship property under ss 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(l) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally should not be treated, in the Court’s discretion, as relationship property, either in whole or in part, under s 9(4) of the Act. [2014] NZCA 117 CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2014 (PDF, 551 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 26 (PDF, 245 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Incorporated and Vero Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 57/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZCA 179).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2014 (PDF, 666 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 59 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Todd Aaron Marteley v The Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 61/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal aid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether costs should have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below. [2014] NZCA 185 CA 735/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Legal Services Commissioner v Marteley [2014] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are:
Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?
22 July 2014
_______________
A The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
21 August 2015
B The approved questions are:
Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?
22 July 2014
_______________
A The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
21 August 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 May 2015 (PDF, 644 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 127 (PDF, 249 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Rhys Michael Cullen v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the actions and state of mind of an employee authorised by s 19 of the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004 to enter into transactions on behalf of a license holder are attributable to the licence holder – Whether the acts of an employee whose normal duties include assistance in dismantling cars are attributable to the employer as acts helping to dispose of property within the scope of s 246 of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 325 CA 769/2013.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.
22 October 2014
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.
22 October 2014
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 March 2015 (PDF, 371 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 73 (PDF, 252 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
CULLEN v R [2015] NZSC 73 [29 May 2015] (PDF, 162 KB)
Case name
LFDB v SM
Case number
SC 78/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the wrong standard of review on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the injury to the respondent and to the interests of the administration of justice more generally outweighed the injustice to the appellant in being debarred from further participation in the proceedings[2014] NZCA 326 CA 864/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.
The Registrar is directed to set down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible during 2014.
25 September 2014
_______________
The application for a stay of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326) and for a further direction that copies of documents be provided to the appellant is dismissed.The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
20 November 2014
______________________
Leave to appeal is revoked.
Costs reserved.
5 December 2014
______________________
A The appellant must pay costs of $52,245.63 and disbursements of $1,511.12 in respect of the appeal.
B The appellant must also pay in addition to costs previously ordered, disbursements of $437.30 in respect of the stay application determined by the Court.
31 March 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.
The Registrar is directed to set down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible during 2014.
25 September 2014
_______________
The application for a stay of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326) and for a further direction that copies of documents be provided to the appellant is dismissed.The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
20 November 2014
______________________
Leave to appeal is revoked.
Costs reserved.
5 December 2014
______________________
A The appellant must pay costs of $52,245.63 and disbursements of $1,511.12 in respect of the appeal.
B The appellant must also pay in addition to costs previously ordered, disbursements of $437.30 in respect of the stay application determined by the Court.
31 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2014 (PDF, 103 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
LFDB v SM [2014] NZSC 131 [25 September 2014] (PDF, 60 KB)
Additional document
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
The Queen v TWW
Case number
SC 80/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 February 2015 (PDF, 506 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jonathan Dixon v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in amending the charge and entering a conviction on the amended charge – Whether amending the charge breached the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and take into account relevant submissions and evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider and take into account relevant submissions denied the applicant a proper opportunity of appeal under s 383 of the Crimes Act and resulted in a breach of the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding a miscarriage of justice.[2014] NZCA 329 CA 518/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 March 2015 (PDF, 447 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 147 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2014] NZSC 151 [23 October 2014] (PDF, 42 KB)
Substantive judgment
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2015] NZSC 147 [20 October 2015] (PDF, 343 KB)
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 83 (PDF, 249 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157 [31 October 2014] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83 [17 June 2015] (PDF, 590 KB)
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Page 43 of 75