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
Margot Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 69/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for an extension of time to file a case on appeal and apply for a hearing date.[2014] NZCA 284 CA 84/2013.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 September 2014
_______________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
6 March 2015
2 September 2014
_______________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
6 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Toese Tu’uaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not fail to put the defence case to the jury – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice in the way in which the defence case as presented by trial counsel was described to the jury.[2014] NZCA 304 CA 82/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 November 2014
20 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TOESE TU'UAGA v R [2014] NZSC 164 [20 November 2014] (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Arthur Sylvan Morgenstern and Tanya May Lavas v Stephanie Beth Jeffreys and Timothy Wilson Downes
Case number
SC 109/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 131, 135, 137, 138 and 301 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim for breach of ss 131 (duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company), 135 (duty not to agree to, cause or allow reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care), in relation to selling an asset (shares) to the company at an alleged undervalue, the onus is on the director to prove that the asset was transferred for fair value – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a director facing claims under ss 131, 135 and 137, who relied on professional advice, is required by s 138 to plead this as an affirmative defence and bears the onus of proof – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim under s 301, the onus is on the director to prove that the breach caused no loss to the company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in fixing the amount to be paid or contributed under s 301, by proceeding on a restitutionary basis and failing to take into account the actual loss caused to creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an inference could be drawn against the first appellant, by reason of failure to call evidence from the company’s accountants, when the respondents, as liquidators, were in an equal or better position to call that evidence.[2014] NZCA 449 CA 122/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Department of Internal Affairs
Case number
SC 117/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 501 CA 496/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Commissioner of Police, the
Case number
SC 121/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a stay of proceedings[2014] NZCA 518
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
MTR v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2014
11 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2014] NZCA 520 not available online
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2013
Summary
Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against sentence – Whether in light of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, which is expressly retrospective, prisoners with recognised intellectual disabilities who were sentenced prior to that Act entering into force are entitled to be resentenced and eligible for detention in intellectual disability care under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of that Act – Whether the appellant, as a prisoner with a recognised intellectual disability is entitled to the benefit of that law change and should, instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment, be detained in compulsory intellectual disability care – Whether the sentencing court and Court of Appeal failed to understand and consider the appellant’s intellectual disability[2012] NZCA 581 CA 162/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 April 2013.
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604 CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 156 (PDF, 74 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others
Case number
SC 21/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal. [2012] NZCA 604 CA 841/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is: Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
B The approved ground is: Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
Date of hearing
17 October 2013
Judges
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Susan Margaret Angelina Seager-Buckle v Eric Clyde Hurrell and Vivienne Mary Hurrell, Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Developmemt, Paul Maurice Buckle
Case number
SC 24/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correct to affirm Registrar’s decision not to waive security for costs ¬– Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) –– Whether the making of Court of Appeal decision on the papers was in breach of natural justice.CA 673/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 June 2013
10 June 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 13 of 24