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
Douglas Banks and Christine Sandra Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 114/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a document sought to be discovered by the applicants was legally privileged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the leases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants had failed to discharge the evidential burden as to fraudulent misrepresentation. [2015] NZCA 417 CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted – Whether directions from the trial Judge were sufficient to cure the risk of unfairly prejudicial evidence affecting the jury’s verdicts.[2015] NZCA 394 CA 477/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 February 2016
16 February 2016
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Anaru Morgan v The Queen
Case number
SC 120/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal from the High Court – Propensity evidence – Whether the evidence is properly admissible under s 43 of the Evidence Act 2006. [2015] NZCA 465 CA 405/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 November 2015
24 November 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
M Hayes v Family Court and Judith Guerin
Case number
SC 122/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Family Protection Act 1955, s 3A – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim that the Family Court had no jurisdiction under s 3A(2) Family Protection Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no proceeding in the High Court – Whether High Court erred in allowing further respondents to join proceedings.[2015] NZCA 470 CA 604/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 21 December 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 129/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in resurrecting an appeal deemed abandoned – Whether the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction in awarding costs to the respondent. [2015] NZCA 543 CA 156/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 16 February 2016 The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
15 March 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Ross Donald Macrae and Lynette Gweneth Joy Macrae v Anthony Patrick Walshe and others
Case number
SC 16/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the right of way allows access only to a single dwelling on the dominant land and for naturally related or ancillary purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s property was a “dwelling” for the purpose of the easement– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the easement should be modified in accordance with that Court’ s conclusions – Whether the Court erred in relation to costs.[2013] NZCA 664 CA 814/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
22 July 2014
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
22 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal
Case number
SC 22/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 66 – Whether the Court of Appeal negated the statutory right of appeal against a High Court Judge’ s order provided by s 66 – Whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment impedes the statutory guarantee to judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what constitutes a ‘judicial order’ .[2014] NZCA 5
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2014
_______________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
________________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
1 May 2014
_______________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
________________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v Skyward Aviation 2008 Limited
Case number
SC 41/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the amount payable by TOWER if Skyward buys a replacement house is not subject to any limitation except that the amount must not be greater than the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that when buying a replacement house a customer is not obliged to choose a house of comparable size, construction, condition and style as its existing house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that once it has been established that the house is damaged beyond economic repair, it is for the customer, not TOWER, to decide whether to rebuild on site, or to rebuild elsewhere, or to buy a replacement house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that TOWER did not have the right to decide whether the house will be repaired, rebuilt or replaced pursuant to the express policy provision that “In all cases we have the option whether to make payment, rebuild, replace or repair your house” .[2014] NZCA 76 CA 563/2013 CA 709/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are granted (Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2014] NZCA 76).
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2014 (PDF, 362 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 185 (PDF, 191 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 53/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal resentenced the applicant in relation to all offending or only in relation to the burglary charge – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly issued the warrant of imprisonment in relation to offending other than the burglary charge.[2013] NZCA 71 CA 93/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 June 2014 ________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014
6 June 2014 ________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Page 35 of 50