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
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.
Case name
Simon McGrath v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 25/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood sample was taken lawfully and in accordance with normal medical procedures – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood test was not an unreasonable search and seizure.[2013] NZCA 3 CA 375/2012 CA 463/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
Barry John Hart v ANZ Bank Limited
Case number
SC 26/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – striking out of appeal against order adjudicating bankrupt.[2013] NZCA 9 CA 858/2012 [2013] NZCA 10 CA 858/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2500 together with all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
11 April 2013
11 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38 CA526/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made?
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved
21 March 2014
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made?
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved
21 March 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 24 (PDF, 85 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust Inc and Friends of Matapouri Inc v Chief Execuitve, Land Information New Zealand and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 31/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Cadastral Survey Act 2002, s 52 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to judicially review the Surveyor-General’ s refusal to exercise his power in s 52 of the Cadastral Survey Act to require correction of the cadastral survey data set – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to costs. [2013] NZCA 33 CA67/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Worthy Redeemed (aka Lee Errol James Silvester) v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2013
Summary
Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit new evidence from Professor John Raine as it is alleged that the admission of this evidence might reasonably have resulted in different verdicts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the propensity evidence of Ryan Moore was admissible and that the trial Judge’s directions in relation to it were adequate. [2013] NZCA 61 CA 408/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 June 2013.
Case name
Alesco New Zealand Limited and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2013
Summary
Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Tax Administration Act 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s funding transactions were “tax avoidance arrangements” in terms of the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the respondent’s tax reassessments of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the respondent’s reassessments in respect of the applicant were not in excess of the respondent’s powers under the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant took an unacceptable tax position in terms of s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant liable for penalties under s 141D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent was entitled to costs.[2013] NZCA 40 CA 53/2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
14 February 2014.
14 February 2014.
Dates
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and other cases on tax avoidance:
(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;
(ii) the Commissioner’s application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;
(iii) the Commissioner’ s reassessments were a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers.
9 July 2013.
Case name
John Colman v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 34/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breaches of fair trial rights – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24–26 – Whether High Court correctly dismissed appeal against District Court decision striking out civil claims – Whether High Court correctly decided some claims constituted a collateral attack on criminal proceedings or were an abuse of process – Whether High Court correctly decided that some claims had no reasonable prospect of success. [2012 NZHC 1343 Civ 2011 488 723 , 724, 726,727
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2013
17 May 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
COLMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 34/2013 [17 May 2013] (PDF, 95 KB)
Dates
Applications for recall are dismissed.
11 June 2013.
Further application for recall dismissed.
13 June 2013.
Case name
Barry John Hart and others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 35/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Powers of the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to adjourn the appeal pending an appeal that was filed earlier in the High Court challenging the legal entitlement of the Official Assignee to liquidate the second, third and fourth applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Official Assignee’ s argument that it had the function and powers to determine whether the appeal would be prosecuted by the bankrupt applicant[2013] NZCA 94 CA 729/2012
Additional document
Dates
Page 29 of 55