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
Stanley Allen Gilmour v Chief Exectuive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 69/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, s 43(1)(c) – Parole Assessment Reports – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 43(1)(c).
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Richard Frederick Eilenberg v Linda Alejandra Garcia Lourdes-Gutierrez
Case number
SC 78/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a High Court decision to enforce a foreign judgment for child and spousal maintenance
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (Eilenberg v Lourdes Gutierrez [2017] NZCA 270) is granted in part.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Does pt 8 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 implicitly exclude the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce a judgment from Mexico?
(b) Would enforcement of the Mexican judgment be contrary to public policy?
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
26 September 2017
_______________________________________
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
22 October 2019
B The approved questions are:
(a) Does pt 8 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 implicitly exclude the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce a judgment from Mexico?
(b) Would enforcement of the Mexican judgment be contrary to public policy?
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
26 September 2017
_______________________________________
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
22 October 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Y & P New Zealand Limited v Yang Wang and Chen Zhang
Case number
SC 81/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents had a caveatable interest in the appellant’s properties.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
22 August 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
22 August 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker v Wallace Douglas Hodder, Ann Adele Hodder and Kadd Farm Limited
Case number
SC 94/2017
Summary
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was moot and that separate leave to appeal the High Court cost awards was required.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 August 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 August 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 March 2018 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 78 (PDF, 82 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZSC 171 [17 November 2017] (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAKER v HODDER [2018] NZSC 78 [22 August 2018] (PDF, 128 KB)
Case name
Stuart Walton Herron v Wayne Andrew Wallace and Belmont Lifestyle Village Limited
Case number
SC 98/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent was entitled to a reduction in debt in respect of the sale and purchase
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trends Publishing International Limited v Advicewise People Limited, Callaghan Innovation, Mediaworks Radio Limited, and Webstar a division of Blue Star Group (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 103/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, pt 14 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining “classes of creditors” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants had not disclosed adequate information to the creditors.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd [2017] NZCA 365).
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.
7 November 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
16 July 2018
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.
7 November 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
16 July 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 February 2018 (PDF, 671 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 62 (PDF, 287 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 115/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice despite the cumulative effect of multiple alleged trial deficiencies.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted. B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 22 March 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M (SC 115/2017) v R [2018] NZSC 21 [22 March 2018] (PDF, 192 KB)
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
Karl Teangiotau Nuku v The District Court at Auckland and The Attorney General
Case number
SC 117/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 347 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a failed application for judicial review of the trial Judge’s decision not to discharge the applicant under s 347.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
8 February 2018
___________________________
The recall application is dismissed.
4 May 2018
8 February 2018
___________________________
The recall application is dismissed.
4 May 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 July 2016 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
Page 31 of 51