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
Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen
Case number
SC 115/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether a tailored demeanour direction should have been given at trial – Whether evidence of breach of a police safety order was admissible as propensity evidence and whether a “proper use” direction was required in respect of that evidence[2015] NZCA 434 CA 597/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:-no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and-evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 June 2016 (PDF, 477 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 121 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christopher Roger King v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to allow a sentence discount for the applicant’ s previous good character.[2015] NZCA 475 CA 19/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 18 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald
Case number
SC 124/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.[2015] NZCA 479 CA 251/2014
Result
A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David Ingram Rowley v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 572/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC ¶22-011).In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Simon John Moffatt Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury)
Case number
SC 128/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the priority of resource consent applications – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that there had been no derogation of the applicant’s rights – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had no legitimate expectation that a resource consent would be granted.[2015] NZCA 509 CA 745/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent
3 May 2016
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent
3 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Robert Craig Winterburn v The Queen
Case number
SC 136/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that conviction of the applicant on some charges was not unreasonably inconsistent with acquittal on other charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by relying on previous warnings about an indeterminate sentence in imposing a sentence of preventive detention. [2015] NZCA 384 CA 587/2014; CA 598/2014
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
JCS Cost Management Ltd and Stephen Roy Johnston v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd
Case number
SC 141/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to interpreting the insurance policy.[2015] NZCA 524 CA 698/20014
Result
Leave to appeal JCS Cost Management Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd [2015] NZCA 524 is granted. The approved question is whether the majority in the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the putative liability did not arise out of conduct that occurred in connection with the insured’s Professional Business Practice.
4 April 2016
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2016
4 April 2016
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the evidence from the complainant’ s mother was not expert evidence.[2013] NZCA 593 CA 100/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 June 2014 (PDF, 313 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 122 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Quake Outcasts v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Fowler Developments Limited
Case number
SC 5/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Government had lawfully established the residential red zone in Christchurch through the use of its common law or third source powers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creation of the residential red zone did not affect the legal rights and liberties of the affected residents such that recourse to the third source was available – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Government’ s offers to purchase the properties of the applicants and the third respondent under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) could be implemented without compliance with the regime set out in the Act for a planned and co-ordinated earthquake recovery approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the different treatment of the applicants and third respondent was not in itself a reviewable error as there was a rational basis for differentiating between insured and uninsured land owners. [2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 - 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fowler Developments Limited v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 8/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a rational basis for the respondent, in making the September 2012 offer to purchase the applicant’s land, to differentiate between insured residential property owners and uninsured owners.[2013] NZCA 588 CA571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 44 of 80