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
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614 CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 November 2013 (PDF, 504 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 137 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others
Case number
SC 21/2013
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 ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal. [2012] NZCA 604 CA 841/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B 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 Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
B 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 Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
Date of hearing
17 October 2013
Judges
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Ewan Robert Carr and Brookside Farm Trust Limited v Gallaway Cook Allan
Case number
SC 27/2013
Summary
Arbitration agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the legal test for severance, and in particular, whether essentiality is a factor or whether policy and part performance are the determining factors. [2013] NZCA 11 CA437/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Should the arbitral award have been set aside?
2 July 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of 9 May 2011 is reinstated.
B The respondent must pay to the appellants costs in this court of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in that Court and the High Court to be fixed by those courts.
20 June 2014
The approved ground is:
Should the arbitral award have been set aside?
2 July 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of 9 May 2011 is reinstated.
B The respondent must pay to the appellants costs in this court of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in that Court and the High Court to be fixed by those courts.
20 June 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 November 2013 (PDF, 582 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 75 (PDF, 85 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38 CA526/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made?
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved
21 March 2014
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made?
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved
21 March 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 24 (PDF, 85 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65 CA 282/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 June 2013 (PDF, 518 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 154 (PDF, 80 KB)
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ifeanyi Jude Akulue v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2013
Summary
Pretrial ruling.[2013] NZCA 84 CA 675/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?
8 May 2013
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 September 2013
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages. [2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 146 (PDF, 266 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcripts
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
MGY v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, in its pre-trial decision, had incorrectly widened the scope of ss 132, 134 and 2(1B) of the Crimes Act to include the conduct alleged against the applicant.CRI 2011 044 3042
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?
2 July 2013
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014
The approved ground is: Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?
2 July 2013
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 34 (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
Y (SC 40/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 34 [3 April 2014] (PDF, 124 KB)
Hearing
5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited
Case number
SC 44/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid. [2013] NZCA 101 CA 178/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored.
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored.
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2014 (PDF, 392 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 121 (PDF, 91 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 47/2013
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 131 CA 532/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 November 2013 - resumes 5 December 2013 (PDF, 466 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 63 (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Page 49 of 80