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 Kenneth Slavich v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 94/2013
Summary
Civil – Security for costs – Whether it is in the interests of justice to waive payment – Whether Court of Appeal correctly declined to review the Registrar’s decision to require security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that applicant’s appeals had no merit – Whether Court of Appeal Judge had a conflict of interest.[2013] NZCA 356  CA 165/2013  CA 197/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.
26 November 2013.
_________________________________________________________
The applications for an amendment of the judgment of 26 November 2013 and its recall are declined.
19 March 2014. The application for recall is dismissed.
1 May 2014.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZSC 130 [26 November 2013] (PDF, 53 KB)
Additional document
Applications for amendment of the judgment of 26 Nov 2013 and its recall are declined (PDF, 38 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 46 [1 May 2014] (PDF, 52 KB)
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v The District Court, Dunedin, The District Court, Oamaru, Waitaki District Council
Case number
SC 101/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Was the Court of Appeal correct to treat the applicant’s appeal as being out of time and to hold that the grounds of appeal raised could not succeed.  [2013] NZCA 382   CA 185/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 101 2013 edwards v district court others (PDF, 51 KB)
Dates

A         The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

B          The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the Waitaki District Council

 15 November 2013
Case name
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as trustees of the Appleton Family Trust and John Appleton.
Case number
SC 108/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the issue of causation in particular  whether, if properly advised, the applicant would nevertheless have entered the transaction.[2013] NZCA 420   CA 858/2011
Result
A. Leave to appeal is granted.
 B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
 
 18 November 2013
________________________
A    The appeal is allowed.
B    The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C    The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated.  If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as Trustees of the Appleton Family Trust [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1  July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Case name
JLM   v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 432   CA 230/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

10 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN LESTER MACKENZIE v R [2013] NZSC 143 [10 December 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
MH v The Queen
Case number
SC 116/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act s 30 – pre-trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act.[2013] NZCA 432   CA 228/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

10 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN LESTER MACKENZIE v R [2013] NZSC 143 [10 December 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
John F Jackson v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 122/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – r 12.2 High Court Rules – s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 – summary judgement – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it was appropriate to make findings of dishonesty in the context of an application for summary judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was dishonest, and in reaching this conclusion, failed to consider relevant contextual and personal factors – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the liability for which indemnity was sought had arisen in connection with the applicant’ s dishonest acts – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its view of the applicability of s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act.[2013] NZCA 302  CA 274/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN FRANCIS JACKSON v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 12 [25 February 2014] (PDF, 57 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant  is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 February 2014.
Case name
John Alfred Vogel v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 135/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, s 13 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make an award of damages in favour of the applicant following a breach of his rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 33(3)(g) of the Penal Institutions Act 1954.[2013] NZCA 545  CA 171/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN ALFRED VOGEL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 5 [19 February 2014] (PDF, 57 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014.
Case name
John Morgan Mackenzie v Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 142/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Aid application – Whether Court of Appeal correctly dismissed the application for special leave to appeal to it from the High Court – Whether application satisfies s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to justify a direct appeal from the High Court. [2012] NZHC 3089  CIV 2012 485 1299
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 23 [20 March 2014] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 49 [2 May 2014] (PDF, 13 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 March 2013.
Case name
Allan John Todd v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction and sentence – Threatening to kill and sexual violation - Whether Court of Appeal correct to dismiss appeal against conviction and sentence – Fair Trial – Police misconduct pre-trial – Right to Counsel – Counsel misconduct at trial – Fresh evidence.CA 265/2004
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 April 2012.
Case name
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Page 42 of 50