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
Greenshell New Zealand Limited (in receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 104/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to exercise its discretion to grant relief from forfeiture of the deeds of lease and licence between the respondent and the applicant. [2015] NZCA 374 CA 3962014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Greenshell New Zealand Ltd (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZCA 374). B Leave to cross-appeal is also granted. C The approved grounds are: Was the Court of Appeal correct to find there was jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture of its rights under the deed of lease and deed of sub‑licence? If so, did the Court of Appeal err in declining to grant such relief?
24 November 2015
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
15 February 2016
24 November 2015
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
15 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Hearing
12 April 2016
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)
Case number
SC 107/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. [2015] NZCA 390 CA 111/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 April 2016 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 89 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Lindsay James Trevor Smallbone v George Paul London, Ian Neville Wishart, Howling at the Moon Publishing Limited, Paulette Merle London
Case number
SC 109/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court was correct to recall the original judgment issued post verdict in a civil jury trial for defamation – Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order a retrial post verdict – Whether new evidence justified ordering a retrial.[2015] NZCA 391 CA 324/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first and fourth respondents. 17 December 2015
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Friedrich Joachim Fehling v Douglas John Appleby
Case number
SC 110/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against decision of the High Court – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 6, 27 – Human Rights Act 1993, ss 65, 66, 105 – Whether High Court erred in its interpretation of the Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act.[2015] NZHC 75 CIV 2014 418 21
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 November 2015
23 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Human Rights Review Tribunal decision
Case name
Michael John Penman v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 25 and 27 – Whether defence counsel failed to adequately follow instructions. [2015] NZCA 364 CA 253/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
28 July 2016
28 July 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL JOHN PENMAN v R [2016] NZSC 96 28 July 2016 (PDF, 78 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 129/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in resurrecting an appeal deemed abandoned – Whether the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction in awarding costs to the respondent. [2015] NZCA 543 CA 156/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 16 February 2016 The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
15 March 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Peter Gerard Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
Case number
SC 1/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs because the purpose of the appeal was to challenge a rule that unjustly discriminates against the poor and underprivileged and because the “pro forma” respondent need not appear on the appeal and incur any costs for which security is required[2013] NZCA 647 CA 665/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
6 May 2014
_________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
14 May 2014
_____________________
2nd application for recall of judgment declined.
17 June 2014
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
6 May 2014
_________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
14 May 2014
_____________________
2nd application for recall of judgment declined.
17 June 2014
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
BRM v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 92 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor did not breach their cross-examination duties – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in relation to appropriate jury directions was wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law partial defence of excessive force is not recognised in New Zealand.[2013] NZCA 657 CA 260/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jeffrey Ugochukwu Orji v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision that a defence of reasonable excuse was not available under s 142(1)(d)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to admit new evidence.[2013] NZCA 629 CA 167/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 21 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
_________________________________________
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
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
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 199 (PDF, 134 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 25 of 55