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
Razdan Rafiq v The Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Commissioner of Police, the
Case number
SC 121/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a stay of proceedings[2014] NZCA 518
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Case number
SC 122/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 519
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
28 November 2014
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
Additional document
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
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
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
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
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
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
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