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
James Patrick Gollan v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction and sentence – Crimes Act, ss 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no basis that the applicant was acting in defence of his home or property under s 55 or s 56 of the Crimes Act – Whether the force used was reasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to not allow a police job sheet to be admitted by putting it to a person who was not the author of it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to exclude an article from the Police Association journal – Whether the applicant had adequate facilities and opportunities to prepare a defence – Whether District Court judges should be required to minute all decisions relating to rulings within a trial.[2013] NZCA 29 CA580/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 56 [11 June 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 125 [18 November 2013] (PDF, 31 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2013.
Case name
Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust Inc and Friends of Matapouri Inc v Chief Execuitve, Land Information New Zealand and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 31/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Cadastral Survey Act 2002, s 52 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to judicially review the Surveyor-General’ s refusal to exercise his power in s 52 of the Cadastral Survey Act to require correction of the cadastral survey data set – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to costs. [2013] NZCA 33 CA67/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ifeanyi Jude Akulue v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2013
Summary
Pretrial ruling.[2013] NZCA 84 CA 675/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?
8 May 2013
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 September 2013
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Stuart Murray Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 52/2013
Summary
Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to hold that the High Court’s determination of the Chief Executive of the Department of Correction’s application for an extended supervision order was premature – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court did have a proper basis for making the extended supervision order.[2013] NZCA 144 CA 482/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 August 2013.
Case name
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited trading as Zurich New Zealand v Cognition Education Limited
Case number
SC 58/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the test for whether there is a dispute for the purposes of a stay application under Article 8 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 is whether there is an “arguable defence” and, as such, is the inverse of the test to apply for a summary judgment.[2013] NZCA 180 CA 867/2012
Result
Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that there will be no dispute for the purposes of art 8(1) of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 unless the defendant has an arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff’s claim as is sufficient to resist an application for summary
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 October 2013 (PDF, 376 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 188 (PDF, 196 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust v Church Property Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 83/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trust law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the terms of the trust arising from the public subscription of funds for the erection of Christchurch Cathedral were irrelevant to determining the current obligations of the trustees or terms of the trust, and that the terms of the Cathedral Trust are to be found exclusively in the Provincial Ordinances authorising transfer of the land for the establishment of Christchurch Cathedral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the terms of the Cathedral Trust allow the trustees to decide to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral and do not require the trustees to maintain the existence of the Cathedral or repair it in order that it can continue to operate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first respondent was free to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral notwithstanding the terms of the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Act 2003 and its preceding legislation. [2013] NZCA 331 CA 57/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the first respondent $2,500.
2 December
Case name
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted. The question of law for determination on the appeal is:Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 40 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Hearing
19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and Visiting Justice to Springhill Correctional Facility
Case number
SC 102/2013
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 November 2013 - resumes 5 December 2013 (PDF, 466 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 63 (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.
[2013] NZCA 422 CA 170/2013
Dates
27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014.
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014.
Case name
Adrian James Leason, Peter Reginald Leo Murnane and Samuel Peter Frederick Land v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 131/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trespass – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation and application of the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by refusing to order a full trial in light of the assumed wrongful conduct given its obligations at international law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation or application of defence of another and/or necessity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to the interpretation and application of the law governing admissibility of additional evidence on appeal.[2013] NZCA 509 CA 642/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
5 February 2014.
Page 14 of 24