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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
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
Peter John Chambers v The Queen
Case number
SC 118/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting evidence under section 44 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
22 February 2019
22 February 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Clarence John Faloon v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 25/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the application for an extension of time for allocating a hearing date and filing the case on appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500. 5 May 2017
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500. 5 May 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Archibald Banks v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal and High Court erred in declining to award costs to the applicant following his acquittal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500.
28 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500.
28 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS v R [2017] NZSC 98 28 June 2017 (PDF, 84 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael John Denney v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 June 2017
9 June 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL JOHN DENNEY v R [2017] NZSC 85 9 June 2017 (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Craig Alexander Sanson and David John Bridgman v Ebert Construction Limited
Case number
SC 68/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the payments were not made by the insolvent company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not receive more than they would have in liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a transaction was not an insolvent transaction.
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sione (John) Uaine Moala v The Queen
Case number
SC 89/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the claimed failure of trial counsel and counsel in the Court of Appeal to pursue certain arguments amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
Result
Leave is granted for application for leave to appeal to be withdrawn without prejudice to the applicants entitlement to re-apply later. 5 February 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Douglas John Williamson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence. [2015] NZCA 621 CA 398/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 April 2016
26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Blackwood Williamson v The Queen
Case number
SC 8/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence.[2015] NZCA 621 CA 399/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Page 37 of 51