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
Christopher Joseph O'Neill v Kit Toogood, Cecil Harding Croucher and Matt Amon
Case number
SC 19/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to recall its judgment refusing to grant the applicant extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to that Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Gavin Graham Jardine v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had not been an abuse of process
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2018
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GAVIN GRAHAM JARDINE v R [2018] NZSC 47 [16 May 2018] (PDF, 195 KB)
Case name
Colin Graeme Craig v Jordan Henry Williams
Case number
SC 21/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the High Court to order a full retrial – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s order setting aside the jury’s verdict on damages.
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4-5 September 2018 (PDF, 895 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 38 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Secretary for Justice
Case number
SC 22/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review – Whether a self-represented litigant who is a practising lawyer can receive a costs award.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 August 2018 (PDF, 407 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 116 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark Robert Sandman v Colin Charles McKay, Roger David Cann and David John Clark
Case number
SC 35/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McKay v Sandman [2018] NZCA 103, [2018] NZAR 707).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
7 August 2018
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondents.
16 April 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
7 August 2018
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondents.
16 April 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 November 2018 (PDF, 568 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 55 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
S v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal on the mode of trial point.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (S (CA377/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 101).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal on the mode of trial point.
30 July 2018
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
20 December 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal on the mode of trial point.
30 July 2018
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
20 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2018 (PDF, 232 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 124 (PDF, 288 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
S (SC 148/2016) v R [2017] NZSC 43 [4 April 2017] (PDF, 89 KB)
Substantive judgment
S (SC 36/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 124 [20 December 2018] (PDF, 450 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
S (SC 36/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 64 [30 July 2018] (PDF, 186 KB)
Case name
John Stephen Patrick v Bank of New Zealand
Case number
SC 43/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
8 August 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
8 August 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 47/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a replacement benefit payable under an insurance policy issued by the respondent was assignable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 68 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
H v Refugee and Protection Officer
Case number
SC 52/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’s appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (H (CA580/2017) v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZCA 188).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order of the High Court dismissing the proceeding is set aside.
C In its place, an order is made declining the respondent’s application to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
D The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
E Costs are reserved.
25 February 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order of the High Court dismissing the proceeding is set aside.
C In its place, an order is made declining the respondent’s application to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
D The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
E Costs are reserved.
25 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 October 2018 (PDF, 357 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 13 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 54/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcript
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Page 29 of 80