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
DH v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to admit expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to the expert evidence was adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to evidence of no prior convictions was appropriate.[2013] NZCA 670 CA 87/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
2 May 2014
_____________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
2 May 2014
_____________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 36 (PDF, 254 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
DH (SC9/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 50 [2 May 2014] (PDF, 8 KB)
Substantive judgment
DH (SC 9/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 35 [16 April 2015] (PDF, 366 KB)
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19 CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 199 (PDF, 134 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark Lee v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no question of law to be decided – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the stay granted by the High Court.[2013] NZCA 483 CA 828/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 July 2014
4 July 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 85 (PDF, 81 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TERRY JONES v R [2014] NZSC 85 4 July 2014 (PDF, 88 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
RJL v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 122(2)(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the District Court Judge was entitled to decline to give a warning under s 122(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s ruling that the photograph evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the way the District Court Judge restricted the manner in which the applicant gave evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.[2013] NZCA 191 CA 707/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
L v R [2014] NZSC 107 [8 August 2014] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
L (SC 28/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 53 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 405 KB)
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v Skyward Aviation 2008 Limited
Case number
SC 41/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the amount payable by TOWER if Skyward buys a replacement house is not subject to any limitation except that the amount must not be greater than the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that when buying a replacement house a customer is not obliged to choose a house of comparable size, construction, condition and style as its existing house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that once it has been established that the house is damaged beyond economic repair, it is for the customer, not TOWER, to decide whether to rebuild on site, or to rebuild elsewhere, or to buy a replacement house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that TOWER did not have the right to decide whether the house will be repaired, rebuilt or replaced pursuant to the express policy provision that “In all cases we have the option whether to make payment, rebuild, replace or repair your house” .[2014] NZCA 76 CA 563/2013 CA 709/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are granted (Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2014] NZCA 76).
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2014 (PDF, 362 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 185 (PDF, 191 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385 Crimes Act 1961 – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted an adjournment – Whether the Court of Appeal pre-determined the case – Whether relevant evidence was not properly considered by the Court of Appeal – Whether expert evidence was wrongly admitted at trial. [2014] NZCA 83 CA 101/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Kohai v R [2014] NZCA 83).
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Case name
Alan Canavan v Damien Grant and Stevcen Khov as liquidators of Quantum Grow Limited in liquidation.
Case number
SC 49/2014
Summary
[2014] NZCA 127 CA 399/2013
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
4 July 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
4 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson
Case number
SC 50/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally was not relationship property under ss 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(l) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally should not be treated, in the Court’s discretion, as relationship property, either in whole or in part, under s 9(4) of the Act. [2014] NZCA 117 CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2014 (PDF, 551 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 26 (PDF, 245 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Incorporated and Vero Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 57/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZCA 179).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2014 (PDF, 666 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 59 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 45 of 80