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
Peter Alan Hutchins v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding no risk of miscarriage despite concluding that jury directions did not conform with best practice. [2016] NZCA 173 CA403/2015
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
31 August 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
31 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council
Case number
SC 68/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the limitation provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.[2016] NZCA 258 CA656/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258).
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 October 2016 (PDF, 425 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 173 (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bodie Hoani Ngapaki Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Juries Act 1981, s 22– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trial Judge was not wrong to discharge the second juror. [2016] NZCA 217 CA27/2016
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 October 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Narayan Prasad v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that deficiencies in reliability warning did not lead to a miscarriage of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no deficiencies in directions on previous acquittal evidence. [2016] NZCA 163 CA695/2014
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NARAYAN PRASAD v R [2016] NZSC 146 3 November 2016 (PDF, 83 KB)
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yao Wei He v Zhixiong Chen
Case number
SC 88/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for leave to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal of the decision of the High Court. [2016] NZCA 340 CA435/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors
Case number
SC 89/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process.[2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 March 2017 (PDF, 360 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 151 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
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
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 80 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lakes International Golf Management Limited and The Lakes International Golf Course Limited v Hartley Clendon Vincent
Case number
SC 99/2016
Summary
Civil Proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting a covenant. [2016] NZCA 382 CA 699/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Vincent v Lakes International Golf Management Ltd [2016] NZCA 382).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 March 2017 (PDF, 682 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 99 (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 38 of 80