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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Secretary for Justice
Case number
SC 22/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review – Whether a self-represented litigant who is a practising lawyer can receive a costs award.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 August 2018 (PDF, 407 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 116 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bevin Hall Skelton v Charles Michael Howcroft, Daran Nair and Charles Henry Bird
Case number
SC 45/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for extension of time to appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding an order for security for costs in an application for pre-commencement discovery.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 August 2018
3 August 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
S v The Queen
Case number
SC 39/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether cross examination of witnesses was adequate.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is allowed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
_________________________________________________
A The application for an oral hearing is dismissed.
B The application for appointment of counsel as amicus curiae is dismissed.
C The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2017 (S (SC 39/2017) v R) is dismissed.
17 February 2022
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2017 (S (SC 39/2017) v R) is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar to reject any further applications related to this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2017.
10 May 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
_________________________________________________
A The application for an oral hearing is dismissed.
B The application for appointment of counsel as amicus curiae is dismissed.
C The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2017 (S (SC 39/2017) v R) is dismissed.
17 February 2022
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2017 (S (SC 39/2017) v R) is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar to reject any further applications related to this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2017.
10 May 2022
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
S (SC 39/2017) v R [2017] NZSC 169 [16 November 2017] (PDF, 210 KB)
Recall judgment
S (SC 39/2017) v R [2022] NZSC 7 [17 February 2022] (PDF, 42 KB)
Recall judgment
S (SC 39/2017) v R [2022] NZSC 57 [10 May 2022] (PDF, 189 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael John Denney v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 June 2017
9 June 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL JOHN DENNEY v R [2017] NZSC 85 9 June 2017 (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
ActiveDocs Limited v Cadre Investments Limited, Michael William Scott and Stanbridge and Treasury Mrechant Finance Limited
Case number
SC 49/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding preference shares – Whether High Court erred by invoking a presumption that dividends from preference shares are calculated cumulative.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
Michael Thrift Murray v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 48 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the trial Judge gave adequate directions on the elements of self-defence and defence of another.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 February 2018
23 February 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
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
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and David Stuart Vance as Liquidators of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) and Petranz Limited (in liquidation) v Darrell Warren Karaneihana and Diana Joy Petera
Case number
SC 46/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 161– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into consideration that if the liquidators were successful that surplus funds would be returned to the directors and shareholders pursuant to Morgenstern v Jeffreys [2014] NZSC 176 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ss 131–138 are codification of directors’ duties. [2016] NZCA 103 CA198/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Page 7 of 21