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
Paul Anthony Thompson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’ s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.[2013] NZCA 640 CA 110/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAUL ANTHONY THOMPSON v R [2014] NZSC 36    4 April 2014 (PDF, 51 KB)
Judgment appealed from

NAMANA V R CA98/2013 [2013] NZCA 640  11 December 2013
Case name
GFM v JAM
Case number
SC 11/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to approach the appeal as an appeal against the exercise of a discretion in accordance with the test established in May v May – Whether the Court of Appeal mis-stated the primary question and should have asked whether the respondent has shown that the Family Court Judge acted on the wrong principle, failed to take into account some relevant matter or was plainly wrong and whether the High Court Judge had approached the appeal on that basis or had erred in his approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interfered with finding of the Family Court Judge and failed to defer to the Family Court Judge’s expertise – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise a number of discretions exercised by the Family Court Judge and erred in describing the discretion under s 2G(2) as a fettered discretion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting the focus on equal sharing of relationship property (and at date of hearing values as determined by the Court) rather than on a just division – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to take into account the interests of the children – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing the burden of proof on the wife to establish certain key facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to s 18C of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in effectively directing sale of the former family home rather than valuing the home at the date of hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach is unjust to the wife by adopting date of hearing values.[2013] NZCA 660 CA 566/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32   2 April 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from

GFM V JAM CA566/2012 [2013] NZCA 660    17 December 2013
Case name
Bon Vincent Namana v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’ s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.[2013] NZCA 640    CA 98/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAUL ANTHONY THOMPSON v R [2014] NZSC 36    4 April 2014 (PDF, 51 KB)
Judgment appealed from

NAMANA V R CA98/2013 [2013] NZCA 640    11 December 2013
Case name
Karl Teangiotau Nuku v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a miscarriage of justice occasioned due to counsel error – Whether an extension of time should be allowed.[2012] NZCA 595   CA 516/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
1 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKU v R [2014] NZSC 45    1 May 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from

PANDEY-JOHNSON & ANOR V R COA CA515/2011    19 December 2012
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19    CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014.  The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014.  The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
DOTCOM AND OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 52 [5 May 2014] (PDF, 38 KB)
Substantive judgment
KIM DOTCOM v HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 199 [23 December 2014] (PDF, 542 KB)
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland. Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge, John Carter, Timothy Upton Slack and Brent O’Callahan
Case number
SC 56/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making plain errors in the findings of fact – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognise that there was a loss of chance to take steps to recover the Gao’s deposits – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the damages – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the finding that the District Court Judge went beyond the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the claim because the amount claimed exceeded the statutory limit – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking that the High Court had set aside the substantive judgment between the appellant and the 2nd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the error of law made by the lower courts on the issue of assignment and consequential unconscionable conduct by the 3rd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding full indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking relevant authorities.[2014] NZCA 169   CA 362/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
YOON LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZSC 130 [24 September 2014] (PDF, 61 KB)
Judgment appealed from

LEE V DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA362/2013 [2014] NZCA 169 [7 May 2014]
Case name
Mariam Tohuia Filihia  v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s trial counsel made no error in the conduct of the case which resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the reconstructive evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 17 year minimum period of imprisonment.[2014] NZCA 401  CA 786/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FILIHIA v R [2014] NZSC 154   29 October 2014 (PDF, 64 KB)
Judgment appealed from

FILIHIA V R CA786/2013 [2014] NZCA 401   15 August 2014
Case name
Victoria Elizabeth Bethell as Administrator of the estate of R M Bethell and Maria Gael Bethell v Christine  Anne Bethell
Case number
SC 102/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Deed of Family Arrangement and whether it made a number of other errors.[2014] NZCA 442   CA 33/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
3 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VICTORIA ELIZABETH BETHELL as administrator of the estate of ROSS MCKAY BETHELL v CHRISTINE ANNE BETHELL [2014] NZSC 177   3 December 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from

BETHELL & ANOR v BETHELL CA33/2014 [2014] NZCA 442   5 September 2014
Case name
Zoggs International Limited v Sexwax Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for comparing the existing and proposed trade marks under s 17(1)(a) of the Act –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider granting the applicant’s trade mark application in part – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning earlier findings of fact which were not plainly wrong.[2014] NZCA  311   CA 461/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ZOGGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v SEXWAX INCORPORATED [2015] NZSC 16  2 March 2015 (PDF, 81 KB)
Judgment appealed from

SEXWAX INCORPORATED V ZOGGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED CA461/2013 [2014] NZCA 311 9 September 2014
Case name
Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Avonside Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 118/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the insurance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that contingencies and professional fees could be taken into account in estimating the cost of rebuilding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take adequate account of the fact that the respondent had sold its red zone land to the Crown.[2014] NZCA 483   CA 520/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Avonside Holdings Ltd v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2014] NZCA 483).The question on which leave is granted is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the respondent was entitled under its insurance policy with the appellant to claim allowances for contingencies and for professional fees given that the respondent has elected to purchase a replacement property.
4 May 2015
_________________
A  The appeal is dismissed.
B  The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
22 July 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED V SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED CA520/2013 [2014] NZCA 483 [1 October 2014]
Leave judgment - leave granted
SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZSC 49 [4 May 2015] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED v AVONSIDE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZSC 110 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 187 KB)
Page 4 of 16