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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
Case name
Shane Pierre Harrison v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the jury verdicts were not unreasonable as the jury could reasonably have rejected that the applicants were acting in self defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions on youth and party liability were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law does not recognise a partial defence of excessive force – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor had not improperly impeached the credibility of a defence witness – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that communications between the applicants were lawfully intercepted and so were admissible as evidence at trial. [2016] NZCA 343 CA554/2014
Result
A The time for filing the applications for leave to appeal is extended.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 8 March 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 8 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DILLIN PAKAI v R [2017] NZSC 27 8 March 2017 (PDF, 83 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Glenn Roderick Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 136/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, pt 1A – Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Parole Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the gravity of the offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the length of the extended supervision order was proportionate to the risk posed by the defendant. [2016] NZCA 504 CA119/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504).B The approved questions are:
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 October 2017 (PDF, 111 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 161 (PDF, 286 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
S v The Queen
Case number
SC 148/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.CA 539/2014 [2016] NZCA 575
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Order prohibiting publication of name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of applicant remains in force pending final disposition of charges he faces in a different criminal proceeding. 4 April 2017
B Order prohibiting publication of name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of applicant remains in force pending final disposition of charges he faces in a different criminal proceeding. 4 April 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
S (SC 148/2016) v R [2017] NZSC 43 4 April 2017 (PDF, 89 KB)
Judgment appealed from
S (CA539/2014) v R [2016] NZCA 575 (Wild, French and Simon France JJ) not available online
Case name
Jay Maui Wallace (AKA Abdullah Maui Warahi) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 151/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant a writ of habeas corpus. [2016] NZCA 602 CA 622/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 1 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
W v The Family Court at North Shore and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 156/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for judicial review of a Family Court Minute discharging a restraining order.CIV 2014-404-001670 [2014] NZHC 2483
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the second respondent. 17 March 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the second respondent. 17 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
K v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 1/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly consider the evidence in breach of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied ss 130 and 131 of the Immigration Act 2009 – Whether it was incorrect to dismiss the proceedings on a summary basis.[2014] NZCA 585 CA 500/214
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 14 May 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ioane Teitiota v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 7/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 245 – Whether the word “Refugee” constitutes and incorporates those who are refugees by way of climate change – Whether the Tribunal erred in its finding that because all people in Kiribati suffer the same results of global warming, that this disqualifies the application from claiming refugee status – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider indirect human agency – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant international law relevant to the welfare of the applicant’s children – Whether the tribunal erred in failing to consider the children of the applicant separately – Whether the Tribunal erred when it made a finding of fact that the applicant’ s supplies of food and water were adequate.[2014] NZCA 173 CA 50/2014
Result
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date : 1 April 2015 (PDF, 433 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Transcript
Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision
Case name
Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 10/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’ s intention to resume living in New Zealand.[2014] NZCA 611 CA 351/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611). The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 August 2015 (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Additional document
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
SK v The Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 26/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009 – Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the applicant’s application for leave to bring review proceedings in the High Court against the Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s refugee status determination.[2015] NZCA 26 CA 694/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the second respondent.
24 June 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the second respondent.
24 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 10 of 24