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
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321 CA 238/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 - 15 April 2016 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] 95 (PDF, 248 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dean Michael Vincent v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 201 CA 870/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 February 2016
23 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DEAN MICHAEL VINCENT v R [2016] NZSC 15 23 February 2016 (PDF, 138 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Greenshell New Zealand Limited (in receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 104/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to exercise its discretion to grant relief from forfeiture of the deeds of lease and licence between the respondent and the applicant. [2015] NZCA 374 CA 3962014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Greenshell New Zealand Ltd (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZCA 374). B Leave to cross-appeal is also granted. C The approved grounds are: Was the Court of Appeal correct to find there was jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture of its rights under the deed of lease and deed of sub‑licence? If so, did the Court of Appeal err in declining to grant such relief?
24 November 2015
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
15 February 2016
24 November 2015
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
15 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Hearing
12 April 2016
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Michael Kinlim Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 111/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court failed to adopt the correct test for bias in respect of dismissal from the Public Service.[2015] NZEmpC 36 ARC 11/14
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 9 November 2015
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Michael John Penman v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 25 and 27 – Whether defence counsel failed to adequately follow instructions. [2015] NZCA 364 CA 253/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
28 July 2016
28 July 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL JOHN PENMAN v R [2016] NZSC 96 28 July 2016 (PDF, 78 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Riley Campbell v The Queen
Case number
SC 121/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the applicant’s interview with police was admissible – Whether cross-examination of the complainant on sexual matters should have been allowed[2014] NZCA 376 CA 378/2014 [2015] NZCA 452 CA 605/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 December 2015
17 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RILEY CAMPBELL v R [2015] NZSC 197 17 December 2015 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
BRM v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 92 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor did not breach their cross-examination duties – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in relation to appropriate jury directions was wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law partial defence of excessive force is not recognised in New Zealand.[2013] NZCA 657 CA 260/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 23/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005[2014] NZCA 3 CA 104/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal are dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
30 April 2014
__________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
30 April 2014
__________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v Skyward Aviation 2008 Limited
Case number
SC 41/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the amount payable by TOWER if Skyward buys a replacement house is not subject to any limitation except that the amount must not be greater than the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that when buying a replacement house a customer is not obliged to choose a house of comparable size, construction, condition and style as its existing house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that once it has been established that the house is damaged beyond economic repair, it is for the customer, not TOWER, to decide whether to rebuild on site, or to rebuild elsewhere, or to buy a replacement house – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that TOWER did not have the right to decide whether the house will be repaired, rebuilt or replaced pursuant to the express policy provision that “In all cases we have the option whether to make payment, rebuild, replace or repair your house” .[2014] NZCA 76 CA 563/2013 CA 709/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are granted (Skyward Aviation 2008 Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2014] NZCA 76).
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
B The questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in:
its construction of the policy;
its decision not to award costs in the High Court to the respondent.
22 July 2014
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. We answer the questions posed as follows:
(a) Under the terms of the insurance policy, on what basis is the amount payable by Tower to be calculated if [an insured party’s] claim is to be settled by Tower paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
Tower’s liability is the lower of the cost of rebuilding the insured house at its present site or the cost of the other house. There is no requirement that the other house be “comparable” to the insured house.
(b) Under the terms of the insurance policy, is it Tower’s choice:
(i) whether the claim is to be settled by paying the cost of buying another house?
Answer
No.
(ii) if settlement by Tower making payment is chosen, whether the payment is to be made based on the cost of rebuilding the insured house, replacing the insured house or repairing the insured house?
Answer
If Skyward buys another house, Tower must pay the lesser of the cost of the house or the cost of rebuilding the insured house on its present site.
B We allow the cross-appeal. Tower is to pay Skyward costs and disbursements in respect of the High Court proceedings to be fixed by that Court.
C In respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, Tower is to pay Skyward costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2014 (PDF, 362 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 185 (PDF, 191 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 10 of 21