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
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 60/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondent’s smoke-free policy did not breach the applicant’ s rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2016] NZCA 184 CA524/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184).
B Costs are reserved.
25 August 2016
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017
B Costs are reserved.
25 August 2016
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 November 2016 (PDF, 533 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 88 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
ASG v Harlene Hayne
Case number
SC 61/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter. [2016] NZCA 203 CA703/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2017 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 59 (PDF, 266 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council
Case number
SC 68/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the limitation provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.[2016] NZCA 258 CA656/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258).
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 October 2016 (PDF, 425 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 173 (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Sara-Jane Skeet v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against her convictions for blackmail and kidnapping – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the elements of the offence of blackmail as set out in s 237 of the Crimes Act 1961. [2016] NZCA 198 CA210/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 September 2016
6 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SARA-JANE SKEET v R [2016] NZSC 120 6 September 2016 (PDF, 84 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bodie Hoani Ngapaki Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Juries Act 1981, s 22– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trial Judge was not wrong to discharge the second juror. [2016] NZCA 217 CA27/2016
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 October 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Lakes International Golf Management Limited and The Lakes International Golf Course Limited v Hartley Clendon Vincent
Case number
SC 99/2016
Summary
Civil Proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting a covenant. [2016] NZCA 382 CA 699/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Vincent v Lakes International Golf Management Ltd [2016] NZCA 382).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 March 2017 (PDF, 682 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 99 (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
S v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Customs and Excise Act 1996, s 151 – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding s 151 Customs and Excise Act authorised warrantless search – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not excluding evidence under s 30 Evidence Act. [2016] NZCA 448 CA712/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 December 2016
22 December 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
S (SC 119/2016) v R [2016] NZSC 172 22 December 2016 (PDF, 73 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Dominique Anita Reti v The Queen
Case number
SC 122/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 45 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that visual identification evidence identifying the applicant was properly admitted at trial. [2016] NZCA 447 CA312/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 21 December 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Todd Aaron Marteley v The Queen
Case number
SC 134/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant was prevented by counsel error from vacating his guilty plea – Whether the Court of Appeal took insufficient time to consider the applicant’s appeal against sentence.[2016] NZCA 480 CA509/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________
The application for recall is dismissed.
8 June 2017
13 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________
The application for recall is dismissed.
8 June 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
TODD AARON MARTELEY v R [2017] NZSC 72 [16 May 2017] (PDF, 65 KB)
Recall judgment
TODD AARON MARTELEY v R [2017] NZSC 83 [8 June 2017] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Page 32 of 50