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
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established. [2014] NZCA 377 CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563 CA 635/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013 [8 April 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 55 (PDF, 83 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
William Duffield McKee v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 8(2) – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not mean that persons who are legitimately able to be prescribed cannabis for medical purposes should be able to grow the plant for this purpose, given the absence of lawful retail suppliers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not allow a GreenCross card holder lawfully to supply another GreenCross card holder with cannabis grown for medicinal purposes – Constitutional challenge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the courts cannot overrule, repeal, revoke, amend or not apply provisions of the law which are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or which contravene cl 29 of the Magna Carta 1297 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not misdirect the jury – Entrapment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the undercover officer did not go further than creating an “unexceptional opportunity” for the applicant to offend.[2013] NZHCA 387 CA 781/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is declined.
14 November 2013.
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited
Case number
SC 105/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.[2013] NZCA 401 CA 28/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Victor George Conway v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 15(1)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence relied on by the Crown supported the conviction of the applicant on the counts alleging breach of enforcement orders – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the prior statement of the applicant where supplementary information was required to interpret correctly the content of the statement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively ruling that under s 15(1)(b) the Crown did not need to establish a real risk that the contaminant discharge onto the land might enter water – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the ruling of the trial Judge as to the verdicts which ought to have been accepted from the jury where the jury had returned verdicts of guilty on all the charges the applicant faced including the counts laid against him in the alternative[2013] NZCA 438 CA 806/2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 October 2013
24 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mark Joseph Benjamin v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2012
Summary
Criminal Procedure – A number of errors alleged relating to process and matters of fact and law in Court of Appeal decision – Whether by allocating a one day hearing the Court of Appeal breached principles of procedural fairness and natural justice resulting in counsel for the applicant having an inadequate opportunity to present the applicant’s case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to the reliability of the computer system and by refusing to admit new evidence relating to the computer records – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the audit report – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the outcome of the trial was not affected by the decision of the applicant’ s counsel not to brief and lead Mr Lowe’s evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have considered the unlikelihood of Mr Spence junior having acted as an “instrument” of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence as to whether there was an oral agreement to increase the applicant’s salary – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that certain findings regarding count 5 were open to the trial judge – Whether trial counsel misconducted the trial by failing to put the appellant’s case to opposing witnesses as required by s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006. CA 897/2010 [2012] NZCA 9
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
23 May 2012.
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Governor-General
Case number
SC 48/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Waiver of fees – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the decision of the Deputy Registrar to decline to waive fees because the appellant’s case was hopeless on the merits. [2012]NZCA 192 CA 163/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 August 2012
2 August 2012
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332 CA 371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416 CA 69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.
10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.
7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Decision reserved.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.
10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.
7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Decision reserved.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 165 (PDF, 267 KB)
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Page 18 of 22