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
Justin Richard Burke v The King
Case number
SC 75/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Burke v R [2022] NZCA 279).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
21 October 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We seek submissions from counsel on the consequential orders that should follow, as set out at [175] of the reasons of the Court.
22 April 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________
A The appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
B An order is made under ss 234(2) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a conviction for injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
C An order is made under ss 234(5) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
16 May 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
21 October 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We seek submissions from counsel on the consequential orders that should follow, as set out at [175] of the reasons of the Court.
22 April 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________
A The appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
B An order is made under ss 234(2) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a conviction for injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
C An order is made under ss 234(5) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
16 May 2024
Date of hearing
20 March 2023
- 21 March 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams, Kós JJ | Venue Christchurch High Court Courtroom 12
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 428 KB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Intervener Submissions CBA (PDF, 910 KB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Intervener Submissions (PDF, 6.4 MB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 20 March and 21 March 2023 (PDF, 334 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 37 (PDF, 303 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN RICHARD BURKE v R [2024] NZSC 59 [16 May 2024] (PDF, 181 KB)
Videos
- Justin Richard Burke v The King SC 75/2022 - 21 March 2023 (Recorded, 21 March 2023)
- Justin Richard Burke v The King SC 75/2022 - 20 March 2023 (Recorded, 20 March 2023)
Case name
Nicholas David Wright v Vijay Bhosale and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 8/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 21, 23 and 24(a) –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the intention required to obtain exemplary damages.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent. 9 May 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent. 9 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Lawrence Reginald Jury v The Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service
Case number
SC 100/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in an appeal under s 267 of the Customs and Excise Tax Act 1996 the burden of proof is on the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge had made a relevant or material error as to the test of intention under s 225(1)(o) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction under s 273 of the Act.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Cecilia Victoria Uhrle v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 66(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury incorrectly conflated foresight and intention in terms of common purpose liability under s 66(2). [2015] NZCA 412 CA265/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 June 2016.
13 June 2016.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 10/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’ s intention to resume living in New Zealand.[2014] NZCA 611 CA 351/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611). The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 August 2015 (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Additional document
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial – whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’ s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt. [2015] NZCA 162 CA 58/2014[2012] NZCA 559 CA 262/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 83 (PDF, 244 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2016] NZSC 83 [6 July 2016] (PDF, 210 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Heartland Bank Limited (formerly Marac Finance Limited ) v Vero Liability Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 82/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “clear intent” in crime risk insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the policy when assessing coverable loss. [2015] NZCA 288 CA 712/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicant to the respondent.
3 November 2015
3 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 6/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
7 May 2014
7 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Neal Medhurst Nicholls v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610 CA 624/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Page 1 of 6