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
Todd Aaron Marteley v The Queen
Case number
SC 134/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant was prevented by counsel error from vacating his guilty plea – Whether the Court of Appeal took insufficient time to consider the applicant’s appeal against sentence.[2016] NZCA 480 CA509/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________
The application for recall is dismissed.
8 June 2017
13 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________
The application for recall is dismissed.
8 June 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
TODD AARON MARTELEY v R [2017] NZSC 72 [16 May 2017] (PDF, 65 KB)
Recall judgment
TODD AARON MARTELEY v R [2017] NZSC 83 [8 June 2017] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Leslie McGeachin v The Queen
Case number
SC 144/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s conviction on the basis of a number of alleged trial errors – Whether the District Court erred in sentencing the applicant to 19 years’ imprisonment. [2015] NZCA 558 CA730/2013
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
24 February 2017
______________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017 (McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16) is dismissed.
12 October 2020
B The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
24 February 2017
______________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017 (McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16) is dismissed.
12 October 2020
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LESLIE MCGEACHIN v R [2017] NZSC 16 24 February 2017 (PDF, 91 KB)
Recall judgment
LESLIE McGEACHIN v R [2017] NZSC 193 [19 December 2017] (PDF, 183 KB)
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Kristian Olsen v The Queen
Case number
SC 152/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s claim of trial counsel error – Whether fresh evidence undermines the safety of the applicant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 256 CA632/2014
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL KRISTIAN OLSEN v R [2017] NZSC 18 2 March 2017 (PDF, 132 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ioane Teitiota v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 7/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 245 – Whether the word “Refugee” constitutes and incorporates those who are refugees by way of climate change – Whether the Tribunal erred in its finding that because all people in Kiribati suffer the same results of global warming, that this disqualifies the application from claiming refugee status – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider indirect human agency – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant international law relevant to the welfare of the applicant’s children – Whether the tribunal erred in failing to consider the children of the applicant separately – Whether the Tribunal erred when it made a finding of fact that the applicant’ s supplies of food and water were adequate.[2014] NZCA 173 CA 50/2014
Result
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date : 1 April 2015 (PDF, 433 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Transcript
Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case name
Kenneth Angus Holmes and others v Kiriwai Consultants Limited
Case number
SC 56/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2003, s 149 – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make a finding on fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding existence of fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the fair value of shares.[2015] NZCA 149 CA 201/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tariana Hineteangaurangi Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the ground of appeal that the jury should have been directed on an alternative explanation of the facts – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2015] NZCA 312 CA 369/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 4 November 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the evidence from the complainant’ s mother was not expert evidence.[2013] NZCA 593 CA 100/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 June 2014 (PDF, 313 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 122 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Quake Outcasts v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Fowler Developments Limited
Case number
SC 5/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Government had lawfully established the residential red zone in Christchurch through the use of its common law or third source powers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creation of the residential red zone did not affect the legal rights and liberties of the affected residents such that recourse to the third source was available – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Government’ s offers to purchase the properties of the applicants and the third respondent under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) could be implemented without compliance with the regime set out in the Act for a planned and co-ordinated earthquake recovery approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the different treatment of the applicants and third respondent was not in itself a reviewable error as there was a rational basis for differentiating between insured and uninsured land owners. [2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 - 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 3 of 16