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
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand v Heli-logging Limited (in rec and liq). And Mark Wayne Ford in his capacity as Trustee of the Wessex Trust, and Mark Wayne Ford
Case number
SC 62/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was an arguable case for a postponement of the limitation period under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
A v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 25 – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 6 September 2017
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Y & P New Zealand Limited v Yang Wang and Chen Zhang
Case number
SC 81/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents had a caveatable interest in the appellant’s properties.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
22 August 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
22 August 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
ESR Group (NZ) Limited v Ian James Burden, Plantation Grown Timbers (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited
Case number
SC 83/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, ss 35, 120 and 232 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second and third respondents were entitled to enforce copyright in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant infringed copyright by importation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $4,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondents. 20 November 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $4,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondents. 20 November 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript civil leave application hearing
Case name
DB Breweries Limited v Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service
Case number
SC 88/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 20 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 October 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Complainant A v New Zealand Law Society and Z, A Lawyer
Case number
SC 95/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to review the Registrar of that Court’s decision to not 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 respondents.
12 October 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
12 October 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Lawrence Reginald Jury v The Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service
Case number
SC 100/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in an appeal under s 267 of the Customs and Excise Tax Act 1996 the burden of proof is on the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge had made a relevant or material error as to the test of intention under s 225(1)(o) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction under s 273 of the Act.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde and Arthury William Taylor v The Attorney-General of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and The Electoral Commission
Case number
SC 102/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2018 (PDF, 493 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 123 (PDF, 299 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Trends Publishing International Limited v Advicewise People Limited, Callaghan Innovation, Mediaworks Radio Limited, and Webstar a division of Blue Star Group (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 103/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, pt 14 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining “classes of creditors” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants had not disclosed adequate information to the creditors.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd [2017] NZCA 365).
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.
7 November 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
16 July 2018
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.
7 November 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
16 July 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 February 2018 (PDF, 671 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 62 (PDF, 287 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 20 of 55