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
Bruce James King v ASB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 45/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’ s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 102 CA 810/2013
Result
A The application for a stay of the determination of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
28 July 2014
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
28 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case Number
SC 45/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted. The question of law for determination on the appeal is:Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 40 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Hearing
19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Shaun Antony King v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal by way of case stated – Juries Act 1981 – applicant challenges the legality and fairness of jury-vetting, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Privacy Act 1993 and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 – whether controls should operate over prosecution use of information including, but not limited to, the criminal history of a potential jury member – whether disclosure by the prosecution to the defence should be required in relation to such information.[2008] NZCA 79 CA 207/2007 10 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
GORDON-SMITH v R SC 32/2008 [25 July 2008] (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Case name
Deborah Gordon-Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2008
Summary
Criminal – Appeal by way of case stated – Juries Act 1981 – Challenge under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Privacy Act 1993 and Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 to legality and fairness of jury-vetting by Police so as to provide Prosecutor with information including, but not limited to, non-disqualifying criminal histories of persons on jury list – Jurisdiction – Leave on same grounds as King v R (SC 18/2008) sought – Jurisdiction issue relevant to King case sole reason for application for leave and to be included as a party to King case.[2008] NZCA 79 CA 207/2007 10 April 2008
Media Releases
- media release gordon smith (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
GORDON-SMITH v R SC 32/2008 [23 March 2009] (PDF, 108 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
GORDON-SMITH v R SC 32/2008 [25 July 2008] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates
25 July 2008 – Application for leave to appeal granted.
______________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 March 2009
Transcription
Hearing date : 3 December 2008
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Wilson JJ.
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Page 28 of 28