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
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
Case name
Bruce James King v ASB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 45/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’ s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 102 CA 810/2013
Result
A The application for a stay of the determination of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
28 July 2014
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
28 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case Number
SC 45/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John David Wright v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in principle – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly categorised the offending as within band three of Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39 – Whether the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to the sentencing hierarchy, the principles of sentence indication and other matters.[2014] NZCA 119 CA 831/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DAVID WRIGHT v R [2014] NZSC 87 7 July 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 46/2014
Case name
Philip John Woolley v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions for offences against s 13 of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing his appeal against sentence. [2014] NZCA 178 CA 687/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland. Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge, John Carter, Timothy Upton Slack and Brent O’Callahan
Case number
SC 56/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making plain errors in the findings of fact – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognise that there was a loss of chance to take steps to recover the Gao’s deposits – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the damages – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the finding that the District Court Judge went beyond the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the claim because the amount claimed exceeded the statutory limit – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking that the High Court had set aside the substantive judgment between the appellant and the 2nd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the error of law made by the lower courts on the issue of assignment and consequential unconscionable conduct by the 3rd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding full indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking relevant authorities.[2014] NZCA 169 CA 362/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Issac John Chadderton v The Queen
Case number
SC 129/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Birchler v Police [2010] NZSC 109, [2011] 1 NZLR 169 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Birchler v Police – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the two detentions were lawful.[2014] NZCA 528 CA 40/2014
Result
The application for deferral of the operation of the disqualification order is dismissed.
8 December 2014
______________
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
8 December 2014
______________
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Case name
John Douglas Tamati Te Hoko-Whitu-Atu Hauraki as trustee of the Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts v Richard Tatere
Case number
SC 134/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the trustees’ children as if they were income beneficiaries when there was irrefutable evidence that eight of the nine children had ceased to be and were not income beneficiaries for the purposes of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the only condition of the consents of both sets of beneficiaries, that due and proper consideration be given to the claims relating to “tipuna whenua” , “whakapapa” and “taonga tuku iho” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to consider whakapapa which it had provisionally allowed to be adduced.[2014] NZCA 532 CA 451/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 20 February 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law. [2012] NZCA 576 CA 360/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
12 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TURNER v DAVIS SC 7/2013 [12 April 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Page 41 of 51