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
University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Case number
SC 120/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard. [2013}NZCA 471  CA 127/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question: Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)? 26 February 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY v THE INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 13 [26 February 2014] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY v THE INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 193 [22 December 2014] (PDF, 175 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 11 November 2014

McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan,  Blanchard  JJ.
Case name
Firm PI 1 Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited and Body Corporate 398983
Case number
SC 141/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Earthquake Commission Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the clause in the insurance policy providing that the respondent’s liability would be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the cover under the Earthquake Commission Act limited the respondent’s liability for natural disaster damage from a single event to the difference between the maximum cover under the Act and the sum insured.[2013] NZCA 560  CA 3933/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

17 March 2014
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements.  We certify for two counsel.

15 October 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
FIRM PI 1 LIMITED v ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZSC 147 [15 October 2014] (PDF, 240 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
FIRM PI 1 LIMITED v ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 19 [17 March 2014 (PDF, 36 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 3 July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 6/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Admissibility of expert opinion evidence – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the trial Judge’s refusal to allow the defence to call an expert did not cause a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was not prejudiced by this refusal[2011] NZCA 654  CA 196/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012.
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 16/2012
Summary
Administrative law – Habeas Corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 16 (1A) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant writ of Habeas Corpus – Improper composition of bench – Error in Warrant for Imprisonment – Breach of natural justice.CA 66/2012  [2012]  NZCA 22
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 April 2012.
Case name
WDB v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Pre-trial application – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against admission of propensity evidence at trial – Probative value of propensity evidence in identifying the offender –– Incident of alleged offending and propensity incident allegedly different in nature – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to regard that the inevitable identification of the applicant in respect of all charges once the applicant’s identification on one charge is established is not unfairly prejudicial.CA 696/2011    [2012] NZCA106
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 May 2012.
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v New Zealand Parole Board, Department of Corrections, New Zealand Immigration.
Case number
SC 23/2012
Summary
Criminal law – Parole – Parole Act 2002, ss 21(1) and 28(5) -  Habeas corpus - Whether the Parole Board’s exercise of its extraordinary powers under s 28(5)  to amend the applicant’s release date was in breach of section 22 of the Bill of Rights 1990 prohibiting arbitrary detention – Whether not permitting the applicant to be heard or represented at certain Parole Board sittings was in breach of s 27(1) of the Bill of Rights 1990 - Whether the chairman of the Parole Board failed to comply with the procedures set out in the Parole Act 2002 and Criminal Justice Act 1985 – Whether the Parole Board failed to comply with its own policy regarding disclosure – Whether the Parole Board’s decision was based on erroneous and irrelevant information and falsified High Court records – whether the Parole Board acted outside of its jurisdiction and abused its power.CA164/2012  [2012] NZCA 116
Dates
Application for leave to appeal  dismissed.
21 June  2012.
Case name
RAS  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Prostitution Reform Act 2003, s 22(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22(1) as a strict liability offence – Whether Court of Appeal correctly held that search warrants were properly obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 rather than s 30 of the Prostitution Reform Act – Whether Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act was correct.[2012]NZCA 189   CA 761/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
27 July 2012.
Case name
Philip Dean Taueki v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2012
Summary
Criminal – s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s defence of peaceable possession – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant did not have possession of the land acquiesced by all other persons – whether the Crown’s guarantee under the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of “ full, exclusive and undisturbed possession” of all land collectively owned is relevant to whether the applicant did have peaceable possession.    [2012]NZCA 428  CA  383/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted with regard to the first charge of assault. The approved ground is whether Mr Taueki had a defence
under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 to that first charge.
14 November 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAUEKI v R SC 64/2012 [14 November 2012] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAUEKI v R [2013] NZSC 146 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 217 KB)
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576  CA 787/2009   3 December  2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [11 November 2011] (PDF, 251 KB)
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625  CA 371/2009   20 December  2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J. 
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property  3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c)  Costs and disbursements on first appeal    5,000   
Total        45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25.  Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 23 April 2012

Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Page 39 of 50