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
Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.
Case number
SC 66/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement. [2013] NZCA 221 CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011; CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276 CA 395/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved questions are:(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 March 2014 SC 72/2013 (PDF, 327 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 28 (PDF, 251 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.[2012] NZCA 291 CA 811/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 117 (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 March 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General of New Zealand
Case number
SC 91/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal made material errors of fact and law in dismissing the applicant’s application to review the Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 391 CA 319/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
A The application is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondent.
14 November 2013.
Case name
Maka Tuikolovatu v the Queen
Case number
SC 96/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 527/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited
Case number
SC 105/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.[2013] NZCA 401 CA 28/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
NT v The Queen
Case number
SC 147/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 381A – Stay of prosecution in the District Court – Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision made pursuant to s 381A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that District Court Judge’s question was a question of law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making a finding on a question of fact, not law.[2013] NZCA 589 CA 391/2013
Dates
Leave hearing
3 April 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 July 2014
Case name
Mark Joseph Benjamin v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2012
Summary
Criminal Procedure – A number of errors alleged relating to process and matters of fact and law in Court of Appeal decision – Whether by allocating a one day hearing the Court of Appeal breached principles of procedural fairness and natural justice resulting in counsel for the applicant having an inadequate opportunity to present the applicant’s case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to the reliability of the computer system and by refusing to admit new evidence relating to the computer records – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the audit report – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the outcome of the trial was not affected by the decision of the applicant’ s counsel not to brief and lead Mr Lowe’s evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have considered the unlikelihood of Mr Spence junior having acted as an “instrument” of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence as to whether there was an oral agreement to increase the applicant’s salary – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that certain findings regarding count 5 were open to the trial judge – Whether trial counsel misconducted the trial by failing to put the appellant’s case to opposing witnesses as required by s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006. CA 897/2010 [2012] NZCA 9
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
23 May 2012.
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 16/2012
Summary
Administrative law – Habeas Corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 16 (1A) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant writ of Habeas Corpus – Improper composition of bench – Error in Warrant for Imprisonment – Breach of natural justice.CA 66/2012 [2012] NZCA 22
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 April 2012.
5 April 2012.
Page 6 of 16