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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 152 KB)
All years
Case name
Kim Dotcom v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 58/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Case name
Robt Jones Holdings Limited v Anthony John McCullagh and Stephen Mark Lawrence liquidators of Northern Crest Investments Limited
Case number
SC 87/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no requirement in s 292 that a voidable transaction diminish the pool of assets available to creditors.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Robt Jones Holdings Ltd v McCullagh [2018] NZCA 358).
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 30 April 2019 (PDF, 353 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 86 (PDF, 63 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited, Clyde Maclean and Elizabeth Currie
Case number
SC 90/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant an extension of time to file the case on appeal under rule 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 August 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
22 August 2019
High Court decision
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Jiri Kupec v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge correctly applied the formulation of recklessness adopted in Cameron v R [2017] NZSC 89 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge was correct to dismiss a defence submission that, if the applicant proved an innocent state of mind, an acquittal should follow – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the trial Judge’ s direction on the applicant’s out of court statement was adequate.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 November 2018
22 November 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JIRI KUPEC v R [2018] NZSC 113 [22 November 2018] (PDF, 41 KB)
Case name
Mark Arona v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting evidence under section 44 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
22 February 2019
22 February 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Incodo Limited v Kop-Coat New Zealand Limited and Kop-Coat Incorporated
Case number
SC 99/2018
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no binding agreement reached between the parties and in its observations about the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having being filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
13 February 2019
13 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Allan John Titford v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal should be granted.
Result
The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is dismissed
5 March 2019
5 March 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ALLAN JOHN TITFORD v R [2019] NZSC 22 [5 March 2019] (PDF, 50 KB)
High Court/District Court judgment
not publicly available
Case name
Rex Lawrence Wilson v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the prosecutor’s closing submissions were proper – Whether the trial Judge properly directed the jury – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
18 June 2019
18 June 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
REX LAWRENCE WILSON v R [2019] NZSC 57 [18 June 2019] (PDF, 212 KB)
Case name
Peter John Chambers v The Queen
Case number
SC 118/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting evidence under section 44 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
22 February 2019
22 February 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited
Case number
SC 10/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2017 (PDF, 577 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 152 (PDF, 266 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Page 29 of 51