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 Robert Halpin v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision declining his application to vacate his guilty pleas.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 February 2019
21 February 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
John Gary Davidoff v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 March 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 March 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited
Case number
SC 10/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2017 (PDF, 577 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 152 (PDF, 266 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark David Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 13/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Safety (Public Protections Orders) Act 2014, s 8 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the formulation of a threshold test for the granting of a public protection orders.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 620).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017
______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017
______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 June 2017 (PDF, 449 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 114 (PDF, 269 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Richard Lyall Genge v Superintendent of Christchurch Men's Prison
Case number
SC 16/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in failing to grant the applicant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 28 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rhys Richard (Ngahiwi) Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 17/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Safety (Public Protections Orders) Act 2014, s 8 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the formulation of a threshold test for the granting of a public protection orders.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 March 2017
2 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
B v ALA
Case number
SC 18/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court erred in its application of confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted but the application for leave is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500. 26 April 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500. 26 April 2017
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Justices Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan
Case number
SC 21/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant an extension of time for consideration of an application to dispense with security for costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
23 June 2017
____________________
A The judgment delivered on 29 June 2017 is recalled and re-issued.
B The application for review is dismissed.
C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
7 July 2017
16 May 2017
_______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
23 June 2017
____________________
A The judgment delivered on 29 June 2017 is recalled and re-issued.
B The application for review is dismissed.
C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
7 July 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2017 (PDF, 241 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 175 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 32 of 80