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
Fowler Developments Limited v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 8/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a rational basis for the respondent, in making the September 2012 offer to purchase the applicant’s land, to differentiate between insured residential property owners and uninsured owners.[2013] NZCA 588 CA571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
BRM v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 92 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor did not breach their cross-examination duties – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in relation to appropriate jury directions was wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law partial defence of excessive force is not recognised in New Zealand.[2013] NZCA 657 CA 260/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bon Vincent Namana v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’ s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.[2013] NZCA 640 CA 98/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 April 2014
4 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 19/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 4 CA 812/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Jeffrey Ugochukwu Orji v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision that a defence of reasonable excuse was not available under s 142(1)(d)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to admit new evidence.[2013] NZCA 629 CA 167/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 21 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alavine Feliuia Liu v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 31/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 9, 9.1 and 3 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that art 9, and in particular art 9.1, were not relevant to deportation cases – Whether the respondent erred in not having specific regard to art 9 notwithstanding its consideration of other specific articles in the convention – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that with the exception of Ewebiyi v Parr no other authorities referred to it held that art 9.1 applied to deportation cases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant case law and its assessment as to the reconciliation of arts 3 and 9.1.CA 4/2014[2014] NZCA 37 CA 754/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 40/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 137 CA 116/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 40/2014
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 53/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal resentenced the applicant in relation to all offending or only in relation to the burglary charge – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly issued the warrant of imprisonment in relation to offending other than the burglary charge.[2013] NZCA 71 CA 93/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 June 2014 ________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014
6 June 2014 ________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Robert Alfred Stevenson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 66/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2)(a) and New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990, s 25(h) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus – Whether s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies in this case – Whether s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 impacts on the interpretation of s 14(2)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering all relevant evidence.[2014] NZCA 308 CA 321/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 September 2014
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
4 September 2014
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Page 12 of 24