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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O’Brien and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 130/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in granting the Attorney -General standing to be heard where the proceedings had previously been stayed against the Attorney-General. [2014] NZHC 2886 CIV 2013 485 5611
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.
25 February 2015
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 March 2015
___________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2015
_____________
Judgment reissued.
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.
5 June 2015
______________
Third application for recall dismissed.
23 June 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.
25 February 2015
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 March 2015
___________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2015
_____________
Judgment reissued.
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements.
5 June 2015
______________
Third application for recall dismissed.
23 June 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
New Zealand Cards Limited v Colin Ramsay
Case number
SC 138/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal considered all of the issues on which leave was granted – Whether there was unfairness or lawyer misconduct in the process leading to the Court of Appeal judgment – The proper approach to constructive dismissal – Whether on the facts of this case there has been a dismissal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred.[2014] NZCA 512 CA 424/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 22 April 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 22 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Christopher Cruickshank v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the state of the applicant’s knowledge of whether the medical certificate was accurate – Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine loss or abatement of entitlement in light of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, section 133(5) – Whether there was a sufficient evidential foundation for an award of reparation[2014] NZCA 574 CA 367/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
31 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 1/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records. [2012] NZCA 553 CA 665/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
21 March 2013.
Case name
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 June 2013 (PDF, 379 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 147 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
Transcript
Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection. [2012] NZCA 609 CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2013 SC 9 2013 (PDF, 516 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 67 (PDF, 92 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 9/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2013
Summary
Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against sentence – Whether in light of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, which is expressly retrospective, prisoners with recognised intellectual disabilities who were sentenced prior to that Act entering into force are entitled to be resentenced and eligible for detention in intellectual disability care under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of that Act – Whether the appellant, as a prisoner with a recognised intellectual disability is entitled to the benefit of that law change and should, instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment, be detained in compulsory intellectual disability care – Whether the sentencing court and Court of Appeal failed to understand and consider the appellant’s intellectual disability[2012] NZCA 581 CA 162/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 April 2013.
Case name
Max John Beckham v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2012] NZCA 603 CA 608/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is:
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 98 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BECKHAM v R [2013] NZSC 70 [16 July 2013] (PDF, 11 KB)
Supreme court decision
MAX JOHN BECKHAM v R [2015] NZSC 98 [7 July 2015 (PDF, 373 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 3 and 4 March 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604 CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 156 (PDF, 74 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Page 48 of 80