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
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 87/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which has been the subject of an appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to indemnity costs – Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 350 CA 623/103
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Kung We Chen v Dilworth Trust Board
Case number
SC 89/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.[2014] NZCA 352 CA 79/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 83 (PDF, 249 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157 [31 October 2014] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83 [17 June 2015] (PDF, 590 KB)
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 103/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the judicial review application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not judicial misconduct for a judge to have unsatisfied liabilities to a party that are not disclosed in cases involving that party, to sit in such cases, and to deny such liabilities - Whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner failed to adopt a proper process – Whether the judicial review proceedings are abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs.[2014] NZCA 441 CA 357/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Costs judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Zoggs International Limited v Sexwax Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for comparing the existing and proposed trade marks under s 17(1)(a) of the Act –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider granting the applicant’s trade mark application in part – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning earlier findings of fact which were not plainly wrong.[2014] NZCA 311 CA 461/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Case name
Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Avonside Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 118/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the insurance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that contingencies and professional fees could be taken into account in estimating the cost of rebuilding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take adequate account of the fact that the respondent had sold its red zone land to the Crown.[2014] NZCA 483 CA 520/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Avonside Holdings Ltd v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2014] NZCA 483).The question on which leave is granted is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the respondent was entitled under its insurance policy with the appellant to claim allowances for contingencies and for professional fees given that the respondent has elected to purchase a replacement property.
4 May 2015
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
22 July 2015
4 May 2015
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
22 July 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 June 2015 (PDF, 474 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 110 (PDF, 247 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Commissioner of Police, the
Case number
SC 121/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a stay of proceedings[2014] NZCA 518
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 124/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 April 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 132 (PDF, 247 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 9 July 2015 (PDF, 577 KB)
Substantive judgment
Page 47 of 80