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
Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 124/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 April 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 132 (PDF, 247 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 9 July 2015 (PDF, 577 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Issac John Chadderton v The Queen
Case number
SC 129/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Birchler v Police [2010] NZSC 109, [2011] 1 NZLR 169 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Birchler v Police – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the two detentions were lawful.[2014] NZCA 528 CA 40/2014
Result
The application for deferral of the operation of the disqualification order is dismissed.
8 December 2014
______________
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
8 December 2014
______________
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Case name
Philippa Currie, Raymond Donnelly & Co, The Crown Solicitor at Christchurch, The Attoney-General of New Zealand and others v Vincent James Clayton and Linda Joyce Westbury
Case number
SC 132/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an accused may be entitled to damages for misfeasance in public office where disclosure by a prosecutor is deliberately misleading – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the prosecutor’s disclosure of the District Court’s sentencing indication had a “requisite public character” and that it was an exercise of a “power or authority”.[2014] NZCA 511 CA 341/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondents reasonable disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar). 5 March 2015
B The applicants must pay the respondents reasonable disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar). 5 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Dennis Joseph Gardiner and Hutia Monica Gardiner v Westpac New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 133/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the mortgagee sale was substantially below the statutory and common law criteria of best price – Whether the sale was arguably unlawful being made to Westpac’s real estate agent’ s licensed salesperson responsible for selling the property – Whether the proceeds of the two mortgagee sales arguably fully repaid the loan but guarantee quantum issues were not summarily determined nor capable of being properly determined on appeal. [2014] NZCA 537 CA 264/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 together with disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).
9 March 2015
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 together with disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).
9 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society and others
Case number
SC 135/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal not to dispense with or vary payment of security for costs.[2014] NZCA 569 CA 456/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
18 February 2015
The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
18 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Allen Louis Harriman v Attorney-General and New Zealand Parole Board
Case number
SC 137/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there are a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s judgment.[2014] NZCA 544 CA 463/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
No order for costs.
14 April 2015
No order for costs.
14 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Cards Limited v Colin Ramsay
Case number
SC 138/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal considered all of the issues on which leave was granted – Whether there was unfairness or lawyer misconduct in the process leading to the Court of Appeal judgment – The proper approach to constructive dismissal – Whether on the facts of this case there has been a dismissal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred.[2014] NZCA 512 CA 424/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 22 April 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 22 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited and others
Case number
SC 3/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extension of time – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and/or law – Whether the Court of Appeal displayed pre-determination and bias – Whether the Court of Appeal acted on wrong principle – Whether the Court of Appeal took irrelevant matters into account – Whether the Court of Appeal was plainly wrong.[2012] NZCA 565 CA 763/2011; CA 764/2011; CA 765/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Max John Beckham v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated and wrongly applied the test for sentence reduction as a remedy for police misconduct amounting to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2012] NZCA 603 CA 608/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is:
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 98 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BECKHAM v R [2013] NZSC 70 [16 July 2013] (PDF, 11 KB)
Supreme court decision
MAX JOHN BECKHAM v R [2015] NZSC 98 [7 July 2015 (PDF, 373 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 3 and 4 March 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others
Case number
SC 21/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal. [2012] NZCA 604 CA 841/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is: Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
B The approved ground is: Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
Date of hearing
17 October 2013
Judges
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Page 28 of 55