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
Desmond James Albert Conway v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 119/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 and the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the applicant was mortgagor of vehicles repossessed by the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 February 2018
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 February 2018
High Court decision
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Earl Raymond Hagaman v Andrew James Little
Case number
SC 121/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis that the proceeding abates with the death of Mr Hagaman.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The personal representatives of Mr Hagaman must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 February 2018
B The personal representatives of Mr Hagaman must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence.[2011] NZCA 135 CA 591/2010
Result
A An extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IVAN JAMES WILSON v R [2016] NZSC 47 2 May 2016 (PDF, 78 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 July 2016 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Acorn Foundation Trust and Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Independent Group Trust
Case number
SC 17/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for requests by beneficiaries for access to trust documents – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for review of a trustee’ s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision not to order disclosure of trust documents. [2016] NZCA 7 CA217/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622).
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties). We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties). We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 September 2016 (PDF, 709 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 28 (PDF, 266 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
ERCEG v ERCEG [2017] NZSC 28 [8 March 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 18/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the applicant. [2016] NZCA 45 CA 855/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
29 April 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
29 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 35/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002.[2016] NZCA 117 CA 129/2016
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 July 2016 (PDF, 372 KB)
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Martin James Mailley v District Court at North Shore and New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 36/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 48(4) of the Extradition Act 1999. [2016] NZCA 83 CA716/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 20 June 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wayne James Bracken v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial Judge’s directions were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial was not unfair. [2016] NZCA 79 CA785/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 September 2016
13 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hilary Jane Calvert & HGW Trustees Ltd (as trustees of the Frongopoulos Trust & Anor) & Chris James v Grant Bruce REYNOLDS as liquidator of James Developments Ltd (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the breadth of the discretion under s 301 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following Mana Property Trustee Ltd v James Development Ltd [2010] NZSC 90. [2016] NZCA 151 CA173/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants (jointly and severally) must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 August 2016
B The applicants (jointly and severally) must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 August 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 11 of 22