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
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 8/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the High Court incorrectly applied test for apprehended bias – Whether the High Court provided counsel with opportunity to be heard – Whether there was an inordinate delay of judgment – Whether the High Court made factual findings contrary to uncontested evidence – Whether the Judge was required to disqualify himself under Section F(1) of the New Zealand Guidelines for Judicial Conduct – Whether there was a breach of natural justice.[2014] NZHC 3175 Civ 2008 044 517
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 April 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
5 May 2015
20 April 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
5 May 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 31/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Review by a Judge of the Court of Appeal of a decision of the Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal to that Court.[2015] NZCA 69 CA 31/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
15 May 2015
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
15 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'
Case number
SC 45/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.[2015] NZCA 122 CA 5/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 48/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Wild J erred in dismissing the application for review of a decision of the Registrar.[2015] NZCA 161 CA 31/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
14 July 2015
___
Application for recall dismissed.
13 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
14 July 2015
___
Application for recall dismissed.
13 August 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tony Gordon Best v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. [2015] NZCA 159 CA 254/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 122 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2015] NZSC 167 [3 November 2015] (PDF, 111 KB)
Substantive judgment
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2016] NZSC 122 [8 September 2016] (PDF, 434 KB)
Case name
Michael Shane Henry Lihou v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Application to present new evidence – Whether counsel presented proper defence at trial. [2015] NZCA 227 CA 646/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal pre-trial decision ([2013] NZCA 195) is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal conviction decision ([2015] NZCA 227) is also dismissed.
30 October 2015
B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal conviction decision ([2015] NZCA 227) is also dismissed.
30 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 76/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept for filing an application for review. [2015] NZCA 276 CA 31/15
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 78/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant and second respondent were estopped from denying that the first respondent’s interest in the relevant property was insured – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment.Civil Appeal/Cross Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent’ s first cause of action (a declaration that it was insured under the relevant insurance policy) was not appropriate for summary judgment.[2015] NZCA 283 CA 734/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are deemed to be dismissed. 18 September 2015
Page 9 of 21