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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Lemuel Misa v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction on the basis that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the jury was properly directed at trial.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Misa v R [2018] NZCA 293).
B The approved question is whether there was a miscarriage of justice at the applicant’s trial.
17 April 2019
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
2 December 2019
B The approved question is whether there was a miscarriage of justice at the applicant’s trial.
17 April 2019
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
2 December 2019
Date of hearing
11 July 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Arnold JJ
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 134 (PDF, 69 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 42 [17 April 2019] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 134 [2 December 2019] (PDF, 162 KB)
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2017 (PDF, 241 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 175 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
ActiveDocs Limited v Cadre Investments Limited, Michael William Scott and Stanbridge and Treasury Mrechant Finance Limited
Case number
SC 49/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding preference shares – Whether High Court erred by invoking a presumption that dividends from preference shares are calculated cumulative.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Justices William Young, Arnold, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France
Case number
SC 93/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as an abuse of process.
28 September 2017
______________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
1 November 2017
28 September 2017
______________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
1 November 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde and Arthury William Taylor v The Attorney-General of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and The Electoral Commission
Case number
SC 102/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2018 (PDF, 493 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 123 (PDF, 299 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Benjamin Vainu V The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2017
Result
The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2018
9 February 2018
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BENJAMIN VAINU v R [2018] NZSC 12 [9 February 2018] (PDF, 198 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
William Yan and Wei You v Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 3/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 29 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 29 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. [2015] NZCA 576 CA 683/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 April 2016
26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Page 16 of 22