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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
John Edward Whitehead and others (as trustees of J and R Whitehead Trust) and Shiloh Charitable Trust v Watson & Son Limited and Denis Eric Watson and Meryl Joy Watson (as trustees of Salem Charitable Trust of Masterton)
Case number
SC 65/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their finding that the rental owed had been assigned and discharged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that amounts owed under sale and purchase agreement could be set-off by amounts owed under rental agreement. [2016] NZCA 241 CA750/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
30 August 2016
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
30 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HC judgments
Case name
Derek Peter Wheeldon and Carol Ann Wheeldon, Anthony John Butcher and Ruth Barbara Rogers, Larry Lawrence Small and KM Trustees Services Limited, Ivor Anthony Millington and Neville Eade v Body Corporate 342525
Case number
SC 70/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 49(1) of the Building Act 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Building Code. [2016] NZCA 247 CA290/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 September 2016
14 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 80 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Rae Beverly Adlam v John Tionga Savage, Lawrence Te Aokahari Niao, Patrick Mayne Savage, Samuel Kelvin Barnes and Tamati Drawbridge as Trustees of the Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust; and Helen Maria Savage and Raelyn Arihia Peita as Trustees of
Case number
SC 120/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the order of the Māori Land Court requiring the applicant to account to the Bath Trust in the amount of $11,200,000. [2016] NZCA 454 CA223/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 124/2016
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
26 September 2017
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
26 September 2017
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 29 March 2017
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.
Case name
Derek Lester King v The Queen
Case number
SC 133/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to grant further adjournment in the appeal against conviction and sentence. [2015] NZCA 506 CA7/2013
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the application is deemed dismissed.
10 April 2017
10 April 2017
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Duncan John Napier and Sara Ann Napier v Torbay Holdings Limited and Torbay Rest Home Limited
Case number
SC 155/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Restitution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants were liable for money had and received – s 161 Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an action for negligence did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.CA 647/2015 [2016] NZCA 608
Result
A notice of abandonment having been filed the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 06 April 2017
Case name
Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – “Red Devils” case – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction – Whether a stay should have been granted. [2014] NZCA 584 CA 725/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if notDoes this warrant the quashing of the convictions?
26 May 2015
______________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.
14 December 2015
B The approved questions are:Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if notDoes this warrant the quashing of the convictions?
26 May 2015
______________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.
14 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 July 2015 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 189 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s statement of claim. [2015] NZHC 403 CIV 2014-485-11155
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 8 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 37 of 50