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
Graeme Andrew Joblin v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice at trial.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 115/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice despite the cumulative effect of multiple alleged trial deficiencies.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted. B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 22 March 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M (SC 115/2017) v R [2018] NZSC 21 [22 March 2018] (PDF, 192 KB)
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
Te Tangata Whenua (as Third Party and Personal Representative of Rhys Warren) v The Queen
Case number
SC 127/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Whether the High Court erred in not granting the writ.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 13 December 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
N/A
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 132/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a judge has power to grant leave to the prosecutor to withdraw charges under s 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prior to a determination being made in the course of a pre-trial hearing under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as to a defendant’s involvement in terms of s 13(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge had not made any determination under s 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act.
Result
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 disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
7 February 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney General , Ngā ti Paoa Iwi Trust and Marutūāhu Rōpū Ltd
Case number
SC 135/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to strike out the applicant’s claim for judicial review – Whether decisions made by the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations regarding land proposed to be applied to Treaty of Waitangi settlements are reviewable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngᾱti Whᾱtua Ōrᾱkei Trust v Attorney General [2017] NZCA 554).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
23 March 2018
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part. The claim is reinstated apart from paragraphs (e) and (f) of the declaratory relief sought. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
B The first and third respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
17 September 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
23 March 2018
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part. The claim is reinstated apart from paragraphs (e) and (f) of the declaratory relief sought. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
B The first and third respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
17 September 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 - 15 May 2018 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 84 (PDF, 263 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence.[2011] NZCA 135 CA 591/2010
Result
A An extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IVAN JAMES WILSON v R [2016] NZSC 47 2 May 2016 (PDF, 78 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 July 2016 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608 CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 June 2016 (PDF, 401 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Page 35 of 80