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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
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
Case name
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 55/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction on the ground that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.[2013] NZCA 222 CA 663/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 22 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G (SC55/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 95 [22 July 2014] (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan, CT group Limited, Cartan Global LLP v Premier Events Group Limited
Case number
SC 58/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to strike out the proceedings.[2014] NZCA 184 CA 773/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 together with any disbursements authorised by the Registrar.
13 August 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 together with any disbursements authorised by the Registrar.
13 August 2014
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Todd Aaron Marteley v The Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 61/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal aid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether costs should have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below. [2014] NZCA 185 CA 735/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Legal Services Commissioner v Marteley [2014] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are:
Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?
22 July 2014
_______________
A The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
21 August 2015
B The approved questions are:
Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?
22 July 2014
_______________
A The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
21 August 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 May 2015 (PDF, 644 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 127 (PDF, 249 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Paul Andrew Gottermeyer v The Queen
Case number
SC 62/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002, s 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that mental health issues do not prevent s 104(1)(e) being engaged.[2014] NZCA 205 CA 739/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 August 2014
19 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
judgment appealed from
not available online
Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385 Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the verdicts of the jury are unsafe by virtue of the circumstances in which they were delivered by the jury – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.[2014] NZCA 239 CA 282/2103
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 December 2014
22 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
R v R [2014] NZSC 194 22 December 2014 (PDF, 92 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rhys Michael Cullen v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the actions and state of mind of an employee authorised by s 19 of the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004 to enter into transactions on behalf of a license holder are attributable to the licence holder – Whether the acts of an employee whose normal duties include assistance in dismantling cars are attributable to the employer as acts helping to dispose of property within the scope of s 246 of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 325 CA 769/2013.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.
22 October 2014
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.
22 October 2014
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 March 2015 (PDF, 371 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 73 (PDF, 252 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
CULLEN v R [2015] NZSC 73 [29 May 2015] (PDF, 162 KB)
Case name
LFDB v SM
Case number
SC 78/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the wrong standard of review on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the injury to the respondent and to the interests of the administration of justice more generally outweighed the injustice to the appellant in being debarred from further participation in the proceedings[2014] NZCA 326 CA 864/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.
The Registrar is directed to set down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible during 2014.
25 September 2014
_______________
The application for a stay of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326) and for a further direction that copies of documents be provided to the appellant is dismissed.The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
20 November 2014
______________________
Leave to appeal is revoked.
Costs reserved.
5 December 2014
______________________
A The appellant must pay costs of $52,245.63 and disbursements of $1,511.12 in respect of the appeal.
B The appellant must also pay in addition to costs previously ordered, disbursements of $437.30 in respect of the stay application determined by the Court.
31 March 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.
The Registrar is directed to set down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible during 2014.
25 September 2014
_______________
The application for a stay of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (SM v LFDB [2014] NZCA 326) and for a further direction that copies of documents be provided to the appellant is dismissed.The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
20 November 2014
______________________
Leave to appeal is revoked.
Costs reserved.
5 December 2014
______________________
A The appellant must pay costs of $52,245.63 and disbursements of $1,511.12 in respect of the appeal.
B The appellant must also pay in addition to costs previously ordered, disbursements of $437.30 in respect of the stay application determined by the Court.
31 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2014 (PDF, 103 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
LFDB v SM [2014] NZSC 131 [25 September 2014] (PDF, 60 KB)
Additional document
Additional document
Additional document
Page 36 of 51