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
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 106/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 106 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Minister of Conservation v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited
Case number
SC 107/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 106 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Kawarau Village Holdings Limited and Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Limited (in receivership) v Ho Kok Sun, Peninsula Road Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Russell McVeagh
Case number
SC 115/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of a sale and purchase agreement – Whether there was breach of an essential obligation – Whether the purchasers were required to settle the agreement when called upon.NZCA 427 CA105/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Sun and Ors v Peninsula Road Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2016] NZCA 427).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.
21 December 2016
_______________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the respondents’ appeal to that Court.
21 December 2016
_______________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the first respondents costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for two counsel.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 April 2017 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 150 (PDF, 252 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2016) from CRI 2015-485-52, High Court at Christchurch
Case number
SC 118/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the correct remedy was the quashing of the defendant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 417 CA663/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2016) [2016] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 March 2017 (PDF, 243 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 58 (PDF, 310 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ian Edward Hitchcock v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s summing up on consent in relation to a charge of sexual violation was sufficient – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the trial Judge’ s failure to direct the jury that they should consider whether the applicant knew that he was supplying cannabis. [2016] NZCA 465 CA265/2015
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
8 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
17 May 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
8 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
17 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IAN EDWARD HITCHCOCK v R [2017] NZSC 29 8 March 2017 (PDF, 82 KB)
Recall judgment
IAN EDWARD HITCHCOCK v R [2017] NZSC 71 17 May 2017 (PDF, 67 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
X v YFT
Case number
SC 127/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to lift a grant of interim name suppression given to an entity defending historic sexual abuse allegations. [2016] NZCA 475 CA741/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
7 March 2017
B We make no award of costs.
7 March 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
X v YFT [2017] NZSC 25 7 March 2017 (PDF, 72 KB)
Judgment appealed from
X v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 475 not published online
Case name
Y v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 128/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant name suppression for proposed witnesses in a case concerning historic sexual abuse allegations. [2016] NZCA 474 CA271/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs. 7 March 2017
B We make no award of costs. 7 March 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Y v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 26 7 March 2017 (PDF, 72 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Affco New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Meat Workers and related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors
Case number
SC 131/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding concession by counsel – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant’s conduct defeated existing rights of employees – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act. [2016] NZCA 482 CA700/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc and Ors [2016] NZCA 482).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 and 21 June 2017 (PDF, 857 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 135 (PDF, 251 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Derek Lester King v The Queen
Case number
SC 133/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to grant further adjournment in the appeal against conviction and sentence. [2015] NZCA 506 CA7/2013
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the application is deemed dismissed.
10 April 2017
10 April 2017
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Glenn Roderick Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 136/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, pt 1A – Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Parole Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the gravity of the offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the length of the extended supervision order was proportionate to the risk posed by the defendant. [2016] NZCA 504 CA119/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504).B The approved questions are:
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 October 2017 (PDF, 111 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 161 (PDF, 286 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 39 of 80