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
New Zealand Dairy Processing Limited v Schenker (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 55/2012
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand – Companies Act 1993, s 290(4)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that management services were provided under a logistics and warehouse agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in implicitly holding that further terms could be imposed in relation to the provision of services by virtue of statements made in invoices issued after the terms on which the provision of services had been agreed – Whether the Court of Appeal set the evidential threshold for counterclaim too high. [2012]NZCA 343  CA  859/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 October 2012.
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 59/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing a factual determination to be made without any admissible evidential foundation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining serious appellate litigation on the basis of hypothetical, conjectural or speculative actions to override the usual presumption of one trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the appellant without an application. [2012]NZCA 359  CA  796/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

30 October 2012.
Case name
Visy Board Pty Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 63/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Competition Law – Commerce Act 1986, s 4 – Application of the Commerce Act 1986 to conduct outside New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the phrase “to the extent that such conduct affects a market in New Zealand” in s 4(1) of the Act encompasses conduct that merely “relates to” a market in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that whether or not a person is “carrying on business in New Zealand” is a question of fact involving a wide variety of factors, not one of which is essential for marking a positive finding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret properly r 6.29 of the High Court Rules. [2012]NZCA 383   CA  312/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
The Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated and others v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 68/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Whether, in the circumstances in which Maori land was acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson settlement, the Crown was in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired – Whether the High Court erred in holding that no trust existed – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty – Whether, if such obligations were owed, those owners have lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the appellants did not have standing to bring the proceeding.[2012]NZHC 1461  Civ 2010 442 181
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Grant Stanley Nicholls v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 72/2012
Summary
[2012] NZCA 444  CA 566/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay to the respondent costs of $2,500, together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

14 December 2012
Case name
Barry Raymond Whitelaw v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether the appellant’ s sentence of two years, five months’ imprisonment was excessive – Whether the uplift of nine months applied to the appellant’s sentence to take account of his previous offending was in breach of the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in s 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2012] NZCA 438  CA 359/2012
Dates
Hearing
Case name
Mars New Zealand Limited v Roby Trustees Limited
Case number
SC 74/2012
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property– Trademarks – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 17(1)(a) and s 25(1)(b) and (c) – whether the Court of Appeal failed adequately to consider the ambit of the reputation in Mars’ “ OPTIMUM” brand in determining whether registration of Roby Trustees’ “Optimise Pro” brand would be likely to cause confusion for the purposes of s 17(1)(a) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating its test under s 17(1)(a) with those under s 25(1)(b) and (c) – whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly determined the principles applicable to fair and notional use and imperfect recollection in comparing the two trademarks under s 25(1)(b) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the likelihood of prejudice to Mars’ interests under s 25(1)(c). [2012] NZCA 450  CA 30/2012
Dates

The application for leave is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar are awarded to the respondent.

19 December 2012. 
Case name
West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal Limited, Soli Energy New Zealand Limited, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated.
Case number
SC 75/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14 – Declarations sought in the Environment Court as to whether the effect of the combustion of coal, extracted from particular mining proposals, on climate change is a relevant consideration under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Matter heard by Environment Court and High Court – All parties agree to an appeal straight to the Supreme Court – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court.[2012] NZHC  2156   CIV 2012 409 972
Result
Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment, is granted.  The approved ground of appeal is whether, under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the decision-makers in the consent proceedings were required or able to have regard to the effects on climate change of discharge of greenhouse gases arising from end use of coal that will be extracted if consent is upheld.
28 November 2012
________________
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
19 September 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 87 [19 September 2013] (PDF, 410 KB)
Supreme court decision
costs: WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 133 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Y v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2012
Summary
Criminal – indecent act with a child and young person – Crimes Act 1961 ss 132(3); 134(3); and s 2(1B) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a person who watches and encourages another person to perform an indecent act performs that indecent act “with” that other person for the purposes of s 2(1B) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the discretionary nature of its power to order a new trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not exercising its discretion not to order a new trial in light of the delay, the distress and the relatively low gravity of the offending. [2012] NZCA 458  CA 321/2012
Dates

The application for leave is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar are awarded to the respondent.

19 December 2012.
Page 34 of 55