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
Mark David Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 13/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Safety (Public Protections Orders) Act 2014, s 8 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the formulation of a threshold test for the granting of a public protection orders.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 620).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017
______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017
______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 June 2017 (PDF, 449 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 114 (PDF, 269 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Justices Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan
Case number
SC 21/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant an extension of time for consideration of an application to dispense with security for costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
23 June 2017
____________________
A The judgment delivered on 29 June 2017 is recalled and re-issued.
B The application for review is dismissed.
C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
7 July 2017
16 May 2017
_______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
23 June 2017
____________________
A The judgment delivered on 29 June 2017 is recalled and re-issued.
B The application for review is dismissed.
C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
7 July 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a retrial.[2016] NZCA 341 CA634/2015
Result
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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
20 March 2017
Leave judgment
suppression
Judgment appealed from
suppression
Case name
Stevenson Brown Limited v Montecillo Trust
Case number
SC 34/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a short form agreement limiting the liability of the applicant was not incorporated into the contract of engagement between the applicant and respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
22 June 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
22 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David Charles Browne and David Browne Contractors Limited and David Browne Mechanical Limited v David Ross Petterson as liquidator of Polyethylene Pipe Systems Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to, and appreciation of, the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss 295(a), 299(1) and 299(3) of the Companies Act 1993. [2016] NZCA 189 CA291/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Mr Browne is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement). We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement). We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 November 2016 (PDF, 512 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 116 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2017 (PDF, 207 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 198 (PDF, 331 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 11 October 2017 (PDF, 269 KB)
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 22 November 2017 (PDF, 162 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dennis Rangiaho Hohua v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 44 – Whether the Courtof Appeal was correct to uphold the trial Judge’s ruling that evidence of anallegedly false prior complaint by the complainant was inadmissible at trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2017
22 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation
Case number
SC 61/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2017 (PDF, 505 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand v Heli-logging Limited (in rec and liq). And Mark Wayne Ford in his capacity as Trustee of the Wessex Trust, and Mark Wayne Ford
Case number
SC 62/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was an arguable case for a postponement of the limitation period under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Page 30 of 51