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
JPC v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48 CA 145/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
14 July 2016
_____________________
Judgment released
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.
19 June 2017
Leave judgment
not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 48 CA 145/2015 not available
Case name
Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 35/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002.[2016] NZCA 117 CA 129/2016
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 July 2016 (PDF, 372 KB)
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Auckland Council and James Hardie New Zealand v Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Body Corporate 19500, and Gefei Liang and Others
Case number
SC 72/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 is that the multi-unit complex claim does not need to independently meet the s 16(a) eligibility criterion for resolution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the 2006 Act is that all of the claimants represented in the multi-unit complex claim receive the benefit of the date the withdrawn claim was brought under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 for the purposes of s 37 of the 2006 Act.[2016] NZCA 256 CA552/2015, CA564/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
D v Immigration and Protection Tribunal New Zealand and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 85/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 249. [2016] NZCA 320 CA642/2015
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 97/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 February 2017 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 115 (PDF, 263 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 23 November 2017 (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Quake Outcasts v Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and The Chief Executive, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
Case number
SC 101/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Direct Appeal from High Court – Whether the High Court erred in concluding that the Minister’ s decision was not inconsistent with previous Supreme Court judgment. [2016] NZHC 1959 CIV-2016-409-000050
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondents
13 December 2016
B The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondents
13 December 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
TWA v HC and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 108/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in transferring the application to the Family Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that the existing care arrangements are to continue. [2016] NZCA 459 CA381/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
18 October 2016
18 October 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TWA v HC [2016] NZSC 136 18 October 2016 (PDF, 99 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Dillin Pakai v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2016
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 CA663/2014
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
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
Page 9 of 24