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
V v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2013
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against Conviction – Appeal out of time – Historic offending – Representative counts of rape, sexual violation and indecent assault – Self-representation at Court of Appeal hearing resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice – Failure to make oral submissions at hearing – Difficulties with memory hindered ability to conduct appeal – Breach of s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2012] NZCA 14 CA 107/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
V (SC99/2013) v R [2013] NZSC 129 [26 November 2013] (PDF, 47 KB)
Recall judgment
V (SC 99/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 56 [13 May 2014] (PDF, 44 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Application for recall of judgement dismissed.
26 November 2013
Case name
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited
Case number
SC 103/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [2013] NZCA 386 CA 758/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 158 (PDF, 265 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited
Case number
SC 105/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.[2013] NZCA 401 CA 28/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Case number
SC 120/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard. [2013}NZCA 471 CA 127/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question: Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)? 26 February 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 193 (PDF, 130 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 November 2014
McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
John F Jackson v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 122/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – r 12.2 High Court Rules – s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 – summary judgement – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it was appropriate to make findings of dishonesty in the context of an application for summary judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was dishonest, and in reaching this conclusion, failed to consider relevant contextual and personal factors – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the liability for which indemnity was sought had arisen in connection with the applicant’ s dishonest acts – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its view of the applicability of s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act.[2013] NZCA 302 CA 274/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
25 February 2014.
Case name
Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.[2013] NZCA 525 CA 147/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
18 December 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BANBROOK v R [2013] NZSC 148 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Wan Lee Chow v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 385; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 9, 24(g) and 25(a); Sentencing Act 2002, s 104 – Whether the trial was unfair because disclosed documents were not translated and no special measures were taken during the trial to accommodate the appellant’ s intellectual difficulties – Whether the appellant’s sentence should have been discounted on the basis of intellectual impairment, age and hardship due to isolation resulting from communication difficulties – Whether intellectual impairment, age and hardship due to isolation resulting from communication difficulties should have led to a finding that the application of s 104 of the Sentencing Act was manifestly unjust – Whether the length of the sentence imposed amounted to disproportionately severe punishment in breach of s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.[2013] NZCA 360 CA 695/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WAN YEE CHOW v R [2014] NZSC 29 [28 March 2014] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 March 2014.
Case name
Patrick Dean Norris v The Queen
Case number
SC 127/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirements of s 220 were met – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow the applicant to adduce new evidence[2013] NZCA 526 CA 59/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 December 2013.
Case name
John Alfred Vogel v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 135/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, s 13 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make an award of damages in favour of the applicant following a breach of his rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 33(3)(g) of the Penal Institutions Act 1954.[2013] NZCA 545 CA 171/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 137/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the Registrar of that Court not to dispense with security for costs. [2013] NZCA 540 CA 309/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,5000 to the respondent plus reasonable disbursements.
19 February 2014.
Page 32 of 55