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
NR v M and others
Case number
SC 125/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there were a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s hearing and judgment[2014] NZCA 526 CA 144/2014
Result
The application to file further submissions is declined. The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
______________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
______________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
N v M [2014] NZSC 189 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 95 KB)
Substantive judgment
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 [27 February 20 (PDF, 164 KB)
Case name
Allen Louis Harriman v Attorney-General and New Zealand Parole Board
Case number
SC 137/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there are a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s judgment.[2014] NZCA 544 CA 463/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
No order for costs.
14 April 2015
No order for costs.
14 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Cards Limited v Colin Ramsay
Case number
SC 138/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal considered all of the issues on which leave was granted – Whether there was unfairness or lawyer misconduct in the process leading to the Court of Appeal judgment – The proper approach to constructive dismissal – Whether on the facts of this case there has been a dismissal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred.[2014] NZCA 512 CA 424/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 22 April 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 22 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 139/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Notice of Abandonment issued by the Court of Appeal was wrong and a nullity – Whether the Court of Appeal’s Minute dated 31 July 2014 inviting the applicant to apply for an extension of time to appeal was wrong on the facts and in law.[2014] NZCA 556 CA 314/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
10 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
10 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited and others
Case number
SC 3/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extension of time – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and/or law – Whether the Court of Appeal displayed pre-determination and bias – Whether the Court of Appeal acted on wrong principle – Whether the Court of Appeal took irrelevant matters into account – Whether the Court of Appeal was plainly wrong.[2012] NZCA 565 CA 763/2011; CA 764/2011; CA 765/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 June 2013 (PDF, 379 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 147 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law. [2012] NZCA 576 CA 360/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
12 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TURNER v DAVIS SC 7/2013 [12 April 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
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
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
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130 CA 834/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 108 (PDF, 93 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Page 5 of 16