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
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
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc
Case number
SC 22/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review. [2015] NZHC 334 CIV 2014-485-10920
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 46/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Cooper J erred in dismissing the application under appeal without a hearing.[2015] NZHC 709 CIV 2015-485-60
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rapata Te Haa Rangitukunoa v John Pieter Koning and Hiria Rewti
Case number
SC 54/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. [2015] NZCA 24 CA 212/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Frederick Ericson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 55/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Whether the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections holds a valid warrant of commitment for imprisonment in respect of the applicant. [2015] NZCA 199 CA 241/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 June 2015
29 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
John Gilbert Sturgess v Robert Mark Patrick Dunphy, Greymouth Holdings Limited and others
Case number
SC 73/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 174 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to not uphold the High Court order that the applicant’ s shares in the joint venture are to be sold at fair market value. [2015] NZCA 265 CA366/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 19 October 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Grant Cuthers v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 168(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Judge was correct not to direct that jury that they had to be unanimous as to the applicant’ s knowledge.[2015] NZCA 366 CA 186/014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2016
22 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 39 of 51