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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
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
Case name
Michael Brian Ogden v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the error made by the District Court Judge in considering a formal written statement which was on the court file but had not been admitted in evidence was not so gross, prejudicial or irremediable as to render the trial unfair. [2016] NZCA 214 CA609/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 August 2016
3 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL BRIAN OGDEN v R [2016] NZSC 97 3 August 2016 (PDF, 81 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren v Michael David Kidd
Case number
SC 94/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court finding that an issue estoppel can arise in New Zealand proceedings based on findings made by a foreign court –Whether the Court of Appeal then erred in upholding the direction of the High Court for a summary account. [2016] NZCA 401 CA 247/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 106/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 106 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Minister of Conservation v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited
Case number
SC 107/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 106 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Michael Kristian Olsen v The Queen
Case number
SC 152/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s claim of trial counsel error – Whether fresh evidence undermines the safety of the applicant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 256 CA632/2014
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL KRISTIAN OLSEN v R [2017] NZSC 18 2 March 2017 (PDF, 132 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Oraka Technologies Limited, Oraka Graders Limited and Michael William Schwarz v Napier Tool & Die Limited, Geostel Vision Limited and Paul Daynes and Gordon Robertson
Case number
SC 154/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that compensatory damages for breach of copyright could not be awarded to the applicant. CA 304/2016 [2016] NZCA 554
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 February 2017
_______________________________
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $750 to the first respondent and $750 to the second and third respondents, that is, $1,500 in total.
26 May 2017
20 February 2017
_______________________________
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $750 to the first respondent and $750 to the second and third respondents, that is, $1,500 in total.
26 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
Judgment (as to costs)
Page 8 of 21