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
Yong Xin Chen v The Cornwall Park Trust Board
Case number
SC 34/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of a lease[2016] NZCA 65  CA 645/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Cornwall Park Trust Board Inc v Chen [2016] NZCA 65).

B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:

(i) to hold that the applicant is liable under the lease to pay the upset rental from the date of expiry of the lease until she vacated the property; and

(ii) in interpreting and applying the applicant’s repair obligations under the lease.
4 July 2016 ____________ Notice of abandonment lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.    26 September 2016
Hearing

15 November 2016                                                      

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Blanchard JJ.

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
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 42/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the applicants had no further right of review.   [2016] NZCA 149   CA 740/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.                17 May 2016
Case name
Augustine Lau v UMH Group Limited
Case number
SC 43/2016
Summary
Civil appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant an extension of time in which to appeal a High Court order extinguishing a land covenant.   [2016] NZCA 132   CA692/2015
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.
5 July 2016
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Crocodile International PTE Limited v Lacoste
Case number
SC 47/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 7(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 7(1)(a) Trade Marks Act 2002. [2016] NZCA 111   CA607/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste [2016] NZCA 111).
B The approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court decision to set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks revoking trade mark 70068?

19 July 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed.  Registration of trade mark 70068 is revoked from 12 December 1999.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We certify for two counsel.
C Costs in the courts below should be set by those courts in the light of this judgment, if they are not able to be agreed.
21 February 2017
Case name
New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 48/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent’s appeal from the Employment Court was not barred for want of jurisdiction by reason of s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Court had wrongly applied or failed to apply orthodox principles of contractual interpretation. [2016] NZCA 131   CA570/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131)
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?
13 July 2016
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.  
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).  We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017
Case name
Hilary Jane Calvert & HGW Trustees Ltd (as trustees of the Frongopoulos Trust & Anor) & Chris James v Grant Bruce REYNOLDS as liquidator of James Developments Ltd (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the breadth of the discretion under s 301 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following Mana Property Trustee Ltd v James Development Ltd [2010] NZSC 90. [2016] NZCA 151   CA173/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants (jointly and severally) must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 August 2016
Case name
AN v Counties Manukau District Health Board
Case number
SC 56/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making a costs award against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by suppressing the applicant’s name.[2016] NZCA 226   CA133/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs. 20 June 2016
Case name
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 60/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondent’s smoke-free policy did not breach the applicant’ s rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2016] NZCA 184   CA524/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184).
B Costs are reserved.
25 August 2016
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017
Case name
ASG v Harlene Hayne
Case number
SC 61/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter.  [2016] NZCA 203   CA703/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011?  And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017