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.

31 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB) 

All years

Case name
West City Construction Limited v Henry David Levin and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of St George Developments Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 43/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no agreement to assign and/or equitable assignment of the bond monies – Whether the deed of assignment enabled the applicant to receive more towards the satisfaction of debt than it would receive or be likely to receive in the debtor’s liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the sum payable under s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.[2014] NZCA 98   CA 101/2013
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Levin v West City Construction [2014] NZCA 98).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A    The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.  
B    The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
LEVIN & ANOR v WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LTD CA326/2013 [2014] NZCA 98 [27 March 2014]
Leave judgment - leave granted
WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v HENRY DAVID LEVIN AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF ST GEORGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 106 [7 August 2014] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v HENRY DAVID LEVIN AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF ST GEORGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 183 [15 December 2014] (PDF, 153 KB)
Case name
John David Wright v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in principle – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly categorised the offending as within band three of Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39 – Whether the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to the sentencing hierarchy, the principles of sentence indication and other matters.[2014] NZCA 119   CA  831/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DAVID WRIGHT v R [2014] NZSC 87   7 July 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from

R V WRIGHT CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119    3 April 2014
Case Number

SC  46/2014
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
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
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
BFSL 2007 LIMITED & ORS (IN LIQUIDATION) v STEIGRAD [2013] NZSC 156 [23 December 2013] (PDF, 482 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
David Neil Balfour  v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible.  [2013] NZCA 429   CA 445/2012
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 December 2013.
Case name
Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.[2013] NZCA 525   CA 147/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BANBROOK v R [2013] NZSC 148 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Rita Wilson v David Murray Blanchett and Grant Edward Burns
Case number
SC 7/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Company Law – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was no arguable defence to the Respondents’ application for summary judgment – Whether certain payments transferred to the Applicant were made with valuable consideration per s 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993[2011] NZCA  647  CA 521/2010.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

24 February 2012.
Case name
David Stanley Heenan v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 26/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Vexatious litigant – Order made by the High Court under s 88B(1) of the Act that no civil proceeding be instituted or continued by Mr Heenan, either in his own name or in a representative or fiduciary capacity, in any court without the leave of the High Court – Order upheld by the Court of Appeal – Applicant’s submissions to this Court repeat allegations of forgery, fraud and perjury against judicial officers and other individuals – whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to make orders under s 88B(1)[2011] NZCA 9  CA 630/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HEENAN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 26/2011 [20 April 2011] (PDF, 38 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal  is dismissed.

20 April 2011.
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160  CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROWLEY and SKINNER v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 51/2011 [7 July 2011] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
Case name
David Mitchell v Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 74/2011
Summary
[2010] NZCA 385   CA 504/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 September 2011.
Page 9 of 12