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
Christopher Roger King v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to allow a sentence discount for the applicant’ s previous good character.[2015] NZCA 475 CA 19/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 18 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland; Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge; John Carter and Brent O’Callaghan and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 127/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the High Court was entitled to make an award of indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant’s appeal seeking a stay of enforcement was moot, the debts at issue having been discharged.[2015] NZCA 498 CA 262/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay each of the second and third respondents costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Simon John Moffatt Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury)
Case number
SC 128/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the priority of resource consent applications – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that there had been no derogation of the applicant’s rights – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had no legitimate expectation that a resource consent would be granted.[2015] NZCA 509 CA 745/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent
3 May 2016
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent
3 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King v PFL Finance Limited and Craig Becroft
Case number
SC 130/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Receivership – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 18 of the Receivership Act 1993 and s 121 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation of loss – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of compellability under the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether there was oppressive enforcement of a credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.[2015] NZCA 517 CA 74/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. If the applicants are not legally aided, costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents. If the applicants are legally aided, we make an order under s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011 that, had the applicants not been legally aided, they would have been liable for costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Galvanising (HB ) Limited and others v John Howard Ross Fisk and Tony Wayne Pattison as liquidators of East Quip Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 132/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 292(4B) of the Companies Act.[2015] NZCA 529 CA 69/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents
3 May 2016
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents
3 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
Matthew John Young v The District Court at Hamilton
Case number
SC 137/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to give name suppression to the applicant. [2015] NZCA 584 CA 643/2015
Result
The application for interim order suppressing publication of the applicant’s name is dismissed.
16 December 2015
____________________
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2017
16 December 2015
____________________
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and others
Case number
SC 139/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was tainted by bias or predetermination.[2015] NZCA 579 CA 193/2003
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
13 April 2016
B There is no order for costs.
13 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 33/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether or not the High Court erred in upholding the liquidation order made by the District Court.Civ 2013 409 1059
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 May 2014
2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation) v Rhys James Cain and Bruce Donald Gemmell as liquidators of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 34/2014
Summary
[2014] NZHC 165 Civ 2013 409 1779
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Page 39 of 50