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
John Stephen Patrick v Bank of New Zealand
Case number
SC 43/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
8 August 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
8 August 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 47/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a replacement benefit payable under an insurance policy issued by the respondent was assignable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 68 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 50/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the issue was whether counsel had properly advised the client about the risk and financial implications of litigation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America
Case number
SC 55/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Leave to intervene declined
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Case name
Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van der Kolk v The United States of America
Case number
SC 56/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Willaims JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Case name
Yusuke (David) Sena v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(b) – Judge-alone trial –Whether the High Court Judge applied the right standard of review to the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment (Sena v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 2319), is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss Mr Sena’s appeal against conviction brought under s 232(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
10 October 2018
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
C We direct a new trial.
24 May 2019
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss Mr Sena’s appeal against conviction brought under s 232(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
10 October 2018
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
C We direct a new trial.
24 May 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2019 (PDF, 447 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 55 (PDF, 286 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Phillip John Smith v The New Zealand Parole Board
Case number
SC 67/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal Judge erred in upholding a Deputy-Registrar of that Court’s decision to refuse to dispense with security for costs.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 16 October 2018
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 16 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 86/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2019 (PDF, 687 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 111 (PDF, 98 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Incodo Limited v Kop-Coat New Zealand Limited and Kop-Coat Incorporated
Case number
SC 99/2018
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no binding agreement reached between the parties and in its observations about the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having being filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
13 February 2019
13 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Rangitira Developments Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the declarations and orders made by the High Court
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019
________________________________________________________
A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019
________________________________________________________
A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 July 2019 (PDF, 131 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 125 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Page 18 of 55