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
James Patrick Gollan v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction and sentence – Crimes Act, ss 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no basis that the applicant was acting in defence of his home or property under s 55 or s 56 of the Crimes Act – Whether the force used was reasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to not allow a police job sheet to be admitted by putting it to a person who was not the author of it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to exclude an article from the Police Association journal – Whether the applicant had adequate facilities and opportunities to prepare a defence – Whether District Court judges should be required to minute all decisions relating to rulings within a trial.[2013] NZCA 29 CA580/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 56 [11 June 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 125 [18 November 2013] (PDF, 31 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2013.
Case name
Worthy Redeemed (aka Lee Errol James Silvester) v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2013
Summary
Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit new evidence from Professor John Raine as it is alleged that the admission of this evidence might reasonably have resulted in different verdicts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the propensity evidence of Ryan Moore was admissible and that the trial Judge’s directions in relation to it were adequate. [2013] NZCA 61 CA 408/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 June 2013.
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages. [2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 146 (PDF, 266 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcripts
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977 Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2014 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Fences and Kerbs Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 80/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 773/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- [2013] NZSC 102 (PDF, 13 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 81/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 864/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- [2013] NZSC 102 (PDF, 13 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v The District Court, Dunedin, The District Court, Oamaru, Waitaki District Council
Case number
SC 101/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Was the Court of Appeal correct to treat the applicant’s appeal as being out of time and to hold that the grounds of appeal raised could not succeed. [2013] NZCA 382 CA 185/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 101 2013 edwards v district court others (PDF, 51 KB)
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the Waitaki District Council
15 November 2013
Case name
Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.[2013] NZCA 525 CA 147/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
18 December 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BANBROOK v R [2013] NZSC 148 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Adrian James Leason, Peter Reginald Leo Murnane and Samuel Peter Frederick Land v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 131/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trespass – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation and application of the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by refusing to order a full trial in light of the assumed wrongful conduct given its obligations at international law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation or application of defence of another and/or necessity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to the interpretation and application of the law governing admissibility of additional evidence on appeal.[2013] NZCA 509 CA 642/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
5 February 2014.
Case name
Liam James Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2011
Summary
Criminal appeal – application for leave to appeal out of time – possible fresh evidence.[2009] NZCA 281 CA 794/2008 7 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
REID v R SC 16/2011 [28 February 2012] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2012.
28 February 2012.
Page 14 of 19