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
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Further Evidence – Whether the Supreme Court should admit further evidence, including evidence from a witness called at trial and evidence from a police interview[2012]NZCA 339  CA  615/2011
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal’ s treatment of the affidavit(s) of H’s son, M, was correct. 28 February 2013
Transcripts
Leave judgment - leave granted
H v R SC 54/2012 [28 February 2013] (PDF, 36 KB)
Supreme court decision
NZSC revokes leave to appeal: H v R [2015] NZSC 70 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 86 KB)
Case name
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge.  [2012]NZCA 363  CA  616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part.  The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside.  The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B  In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C  In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D  The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
NEIL STUART JOHNSTON v CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK SCHURR [2015] NZSC 82 [12 June 2015] (PDF, 359 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2015

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Philip Dean Taueki v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2012
Summary
Criminal – s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s defence of peaceable possession – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant did not have possession of the land acquiesced by all other persons – whether the Crown’s guarantee under the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of “ full, exclusive and undisturbed possession” of all land collectively owned is relevant to whether the applicant did have peaceable possession.    [2012]NZCA 428  CA  383/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted with regard to the first charge of assault. The approved ground is whether Mr Taueki had a defence
under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 to that first charge.
14 November 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAUEKI v R SC 64/2012 [14 November 2012] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAUEKI v R [2013] NZSC 146 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 217 KB)
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate.  [2012]NZCA 399  CA  200/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 [20 September 2013] (PDF, 255 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 March 2013
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
Grant Stanley Nicholls v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 72/2012
Summary
[2012] NZCA 444  CA 566/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay to the respondent costs of $2,500, together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

14 December 2012
Case name
West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal Limited, Soli Energy New Zealand Limited, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated.
Case number
SC 75/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14 – Declarations sought in the Environment Court as to whether the effect of the combustion of coal, extracted from particular mining proposals, on climate change is a relevant consideration under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Matter heard by Environment Court and High Court – All parties agree to an appeal straight to the Supreme Court – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court.[2012] NZHC  2156   CIV 2012 409 972
Result
Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment, is granted.  The approved ground of appeal is whether, under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the decision-makers in the consent proceedings were required or able to have regard to the effects on climate change of discharge of greenhouse gases arising from end use of coal that will be extracted if consent is upheld.
28 November 2012
________________
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
19 September 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 87 [19 September 2013] (PDF, 410 KB)
Supreme court decision
costs: WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 133 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility
Case number
SC 80/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Applicant remanded in custody until his eligibility for surrender under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 has been determined – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take into consideration the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture under ss 8 and 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give authorities from New Zealand and the United Nations Human Rights Committee the intensive scrutiny they warranted – Whether the lawfulness of the application to extradite the applicant is a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application – Whether challenges to the applicant’s status as an “extraditable person” are a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application.   [2012] NZCA 471  CA 637/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the Courts below were correct to dismiss the proceeding because the alleged deficiencies in the request to surrender and the application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application.

16 November 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed. No order for costs.

20 December 2012
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 December 2012
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court  Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530    CA 756/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
P v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) SC 87/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
P (SC 87/2012) v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 152 [19 December 2013 (PDF, 285 KB)
Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 
18 April 2013
________________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
KOVINANTIE VAHAFOLUA FUKOFUKA V R SC 95/2012 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
FUKOFUKA v R [2013] NZSC 77 [16 August 2013] (PDF, 150 KB)
Page 53 of 80