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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
ActiveDocs Limited v Cadre Investments Limited, Michael William Scott and Stanbridge and Treasury Mrechant Finance Limited
Case number
SC 49/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding preference shares – Whether High Court erred by invoking a presumption that dividends from preference shares are calculated cumulative.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Earl Raymond Hagaman v Andrew James Little
Case number
SC 53/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to claim the defence of qualified privilege in relation to allegedly defamatory statements made by him about the applicant – Whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
12 June 2017
Judgment appealed from -HC judgment
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Justices William Young, Arnold, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France
Case number
SC 93/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as an abuse of process.
28 September 2017
______________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
1 November 2017
28 September 2017
______________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
1 November 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
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
Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde and Arthury William Taylor v The Attorney-General of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and The Electoral Commission
Case number
SC 102/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2018 (PDF, 493 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 123 (PDF, 299 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Graeme Andrew Joblin v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice at trial.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Earl Raymond Hagaman v Andrew James Little
Case number
SC 121/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis that the proceeding abates with the death of Mr Hagaman.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The personal representatives of Mr Hagaman must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 February 2018
B The personal representatives of Mr Hagaman must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Steven Philip Mason and Katharine Mary Mason v Andrew Hamilton Magee and Sharon Lee Magee
Case number
SC 128/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contractual Remedies Act 1979, s 6 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no misrepresentation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
9th February 2018
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
9th February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MASON v MAGEE [2018] NZSC 11 [9 February 2018] (PDF, 215 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
William Yan and Wei You v Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 3/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 29 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 29 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. [2015] NZCA 576 CA 683/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 April 2016
26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 18 of 25