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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No 1, National Standards Committee.
Case number
SC 68/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a lawyer could be proceeded against before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal or struck off for making a complaint against a Judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no legal or evidential threshold for referring matters to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that reasons need not be given for a decision by a Standards Committee to refer a matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in the disciplinary process –Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant a fair and impartial hearing.[2013] NZCA 230 CA 554/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 October 2013.
8 October 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Save Kapiti Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 89/2013
Summary
Civil – Resource Consent – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 171, 104 – whether the High Court erred in determining that permitted activities and unimplemented resource consents do not fall within the scope of “environment” for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) – whether the High Court correctly applied the tests set out in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate.[2013] NZHC 2104 Civ 2013 485 724
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
14 November 2013
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
University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Case number
SC 120/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard. [2013}NZCA 471 CA 127/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question: Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)? 26 February 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 193 (PDF, 130 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 November 2014
McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Roading and Asphalt Limited v South Waikato District Council
Case number
SC 145/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tender methodology – Whether the respondent was in breach of a tender contract by awarding the solid waste disposal contract to a bid that was not the lowest price conforming tender – Whether the respondent was in breach of an implied obligation to treat tenderers fairly and equally, in not following the specific tender process set out in the tender contract, and in not treating the tenderers even-handedly.[2013] NZCA 566 CA 398/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
10 March 2014.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 37/2012
Summary
CA 417/2011 [2012] NZCA139
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases.
19 July 2012
__________________
Appeal dismissed.Mr Siemer must surrender at the Registry of the High Court at Auckland at 9.00 am on Monday 16 July 2013.
12 July 2013
Transcripts
Hearing date : 15 November 2012
Hearing date : 14 February 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers Glazebrook JJ
Case name
The New Zealand Māori Council and Waikato Rivers and Dams Claims Trust v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, The Minister of Finance and The Minister of State Owned Enterprises
Case number
SC 98/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for direct appeal – Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the New Zealand Māori Council’ s application for review. [2012] NZHC 3338 Civ 2012 485 2187
Result
Leave to appeal, and to appeal direct to this Court, is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 6 (PDF, 109 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 February 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal out of time against conviction for importation and possession of methamphetamine – Whether the Court failed to provide a proper interpreter at, or interpretation of, the trial – Interlocutory application under ss 25(2) and 28 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and/or rule 18 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004 – Request for an interlocutory order that the Auckland High Court Registry release a copy of all audio recordings of Mr Wong at trial to support this application.CRI 2005 004 15296 1 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WONG v R SC 17/2011 [11 March 2011] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 March 2011.Page 14 of 20