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
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 137/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to file case on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing application to debar counsel. [2016] NZCA 513 CA740/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter and 168 Group Limited
Case number
SC 138/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – s 44 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44.[2016] NZCA 514 CA720/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 196 (PDF, 285 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 June 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.
Case name
Ryan Warren Geary-Smart v The Queen
Case number
SC 139/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 62 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by requiring that further independent advice regarding the privilege against self‑incrimination be offered to a co-defendant – Whether the Court erred in refusing to grant leave to admit fresh evidence – Whether the Court erred by upholding the decision to admit propensity evidence – Whether the Court erred in upholding the sentence. [2016] NZCA 509 CA132/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
3 March 2017
3 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEARY-SMART v R [2017] NZSC 23 3 March 2017 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jacob Christopher Geary-Smart v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 62 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by requiring that further independent advice regarding the privilege against self‑incrimination be offered to a co-defendant – Whether the Court erred in refusing to grant leave to admit fresh evidence – Whether the Court erred by upholding the decision to admit propensity evidence – Whether the Court erred in upholding the sentence. [2016] NZCA 509 CA134/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 3 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEARY-SMART v R [2017] NZSC 23 3 March 2017 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General (for and on behalf of the Minister of Health)
Case number
SC 141/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
Date of hearing
16 November 2017
- 17 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 and 17 November 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 59 and MR [2018] NZSC 60 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 139 (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors
Case number
SC 150/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents.CA 736/2015 [2016] NZCA 538
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 July 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 197 (PDF, 289 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Jay Maui Wallace (AKA Abdullah Maui Warahi) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 151/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant a writ of habeas corpus. [2016] NZCA 602 CA 622/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 1 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Michael Kristian Olsen v The Queen
Case number
SC 152/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s claim of trial counsel error – Whether fresh evidence undermines the safety of the applicant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 256 CA632/2014
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL KRISTIAN OLSEN v R [2017] NZSC 18 2 March 2017 (PDF, 132 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – “Red Devils” case – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction – Whether a stay should have been granted. [2014] NZCA 584 CA 725/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if notDoes this warrant the quashing of the convictions?
26 May 2015
______________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.
14 December 2015
B The approved questions are:Was R v Antonievic [2013] NZCA 483, [2013] 3 NZLR 806 correctly decided? And, if notDoes this warrant the quashing of the convictions?
26 May 2015
______________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for a retrial.
14 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 July 2015 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 189 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 40 of 80