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.
5 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 5 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 5 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 124 KB)
All years
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
Case name
Isaac Paparoa v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the imposition of a Minimum Period of Imprisonment.[2015] NZCA 234 CA 389/2014
Result
A Extension of time for filing application for leave to appeal granted.
B Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 May 2016 __
B Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 May 2016 __
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ISAAC PAPAROA v R [2016] NZSC 59 30 May 2016 (PDF, 113 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 35/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002.[2016] NZCA 117 CA 129/2016
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 July 2016 (PDF, 372 KB)
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jesse Waiariki Tamanava Butler v North Shore Police
Case number
SC 45/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for an extension of time to appeal on the basis that the case was inarguable. [2016] NZCA 150 CA657/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 June 2016
13 June 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and David Stuart Vance as Liquidators of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) and Petranz Limited (in liquidation) v Darrell Warren Karaneihana and Diana Joy Petera
Case number
SC 46/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 161– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into consideration that if the liquidators were successful that surplus funds would be returned to the directors and shareholders pursuant to Morgenstern v Jeffreys [2014] NZSC 176 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ss 131–138 are codification of directors’ duties. [2016] NZCA 103 CA198/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Page 31 of 50