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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
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
Case name
Johan Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand, Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 26/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(5) and sch 3, s 2 – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was deficient because it failed to properly state its reasons in breach of rule 27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction by treating the hearing as a de novo hearing when the appellant had elected for a non de novo hearing – Whether “suspicion” falls below the threshold of “knowing” or reasonably knowing” in terms of s 135(5) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the right to lay representation in the Employment Court, as provided under s 2 of sch 3, to the Court of Appeal. [2014] NZCA 16 CA 400/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Siemer v New Zealand Court of Appeal and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 30/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the means of conveying the judgment upholding the Registrar’s decision was lawful. CA 4/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2014
______________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
4 July 2014
11 June 2014
______________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
4 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
not available online
Case name
Forivermor Limited v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 51/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that clauses 1.2 (b)(iv) and 5.1 of the Code of Banking Practice were not each incorporated into the finance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent did not breach the said clauses, in particular by the advance of funds on or about 9 September 2008 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant suffered no loss as a result of the action and/or inaction of the respondent.[2014] NZCA 129 CA 790/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $2,500.00 10 July 2014
Costs to respondent $2,500.00 10 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Incorporated and Vero Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 57/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZCA 179).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2014 (PDF, 666 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 59 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Alfred Stevenson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 66/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2)(a) and New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990, s 25(h) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus – Whether s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies in this case – Whether s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 impacts on the interpretation of s 14(2)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering all relevant evidence.[2014] NZCA 308 CA 321/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 September 2014
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
4 September 2014
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Google New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 72/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 320 CA 174/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondent.
17 September 2014
________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
6 November 2014
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondent.
17 September 2014
________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
6 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Maythem Kamil Radhi v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 73/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Immigration Act 1987, ss 142 and 144 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “arrival” in New Zealand was not a requirement for an offence to be committed under s 142(fa) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was an offence to attempt to commit the offence set out in s 142(fa) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the multiplier provision in s 144(1A) of the Immigration Act 1987 applies to both the fine and the period of imprisonment set out in that section.[2014] NZCA 327 CA 322/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 September 2014
29 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 75/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’ s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 321 CA 210/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
26 September 2014
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
26 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 26 of 55