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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Desmond William Cook v Housing New Zealand Corporation
Case number
SC 27/2018
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
8 May 2018
B There is no award of costs.
8 May 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Wayne William Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 76 – Juror misconduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for an order to appoint a special counsel.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2018
21 August 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lemuel Misa v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction on the basis that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the jury was properly directed at trial.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Misa v R [2018] NZCA 293).
B The approved question is whether there was a miscarriage of justice at the applicant’s trial.
17 April 2019
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
2 December 2019
B The approved question is whether there was a miscarriage of justice at the applicant’s trial.
17 April 2019
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
2 December 2019
Date of hearing
11 July 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Arnold JJ
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 134 (PDF, 69 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 42 [17 April 2019] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 134 [2 December 2019] (PDF, 162 KB)
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Hyun Su Park v Joong Song Kwak and Hye Sook Kwak, Andrew J Steele and Jarred Scott, Tim J Rainey and Jonathan Wood
Case number
SC 7/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, ss 93 and 95 – Whether the High Court and Court of Appeal erred in their approach to a second appeal under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act.
Result
A The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the third respondents.
9 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the third respondents.
9 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
PARK v KWAK & ANOR [2016] NZCA 574 8 December 2016 not available online _
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2017 (PDF, 241 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 175 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
Page 17 of 24