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
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted. The question of law for determination on the appeal is:Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 40 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Hearing
19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
John Douglas McKenzie v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act ss 8, 12A and 27(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “statement” in s 27(1) of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply the “co-conspirator’s rule” under s 12A of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable.[2013] NZHCA 378 CA 795/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
11 November 2013
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.
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
Additional document
Recall judgment
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
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
- MR [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 254 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
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
10 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
10 December 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
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
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014.
Page 43 of 51