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.
17 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 139/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Notice of Abandonment issued by the Court of Appeal was wrong and a nullity – Whether the Court of Appeal’s Minute dated 31 July 2014 inviting the applicant to apply for an extension of time to appeal was wrong on the facts and in law.[2014] NZCA 556 CA 314/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
10 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
10 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Susan Margaret Angelina Seager-Buckle v Eric Clyde Hurrell and Vivienne Mary Hurrell, Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Developmemt, Paul Maurice Buckle
Case number
SC 24/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correct to affirm Registrar’s decision not to waive security for costs ¬– Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) –– Whether the making of Court of Appeal decision on the papers was in breach of natural justice.CA 673/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 June 2013
10 June 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65 CA 282/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 June 2013 (PDF, 518 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 154 (PDF, 80 KB)
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Case number
SC 134/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to waive security for costs – Whether waiver of security for costs is in the interests of justice. [2013] NZCA 586 CA 577/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014
19 February 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Erin Alice Leigh v The Attorney-General and Lindsay Gow
Case number
SC 10/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – the applicant claims damages for defamation against the then Minister for the Environment and Deputy Secretary of the Ministry in relation to statements made about her in a Briefing Paper and orally – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 precluded the applicant from relying on republication of the statements in the House of Representatives to show the nature and extent of consequential damage from the original written and oral statements[2010] NZCA 624 CA 483/2009 17 December 2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 April 2011
Case name
The Attorney-General and Lindsay Gow v Erin Alice Leigh
Case number
SC 11/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation Act 1992 – Absolute Privilege – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Briefing Paper and oral statements did not form part of the “proceedings in the House of Representatives” and therefore were not protected by absolute privilege[2010] NZCA 624 CA 483/2009 17 December 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the communications by Mr Gow to the Minister for the Environment were the subject of absolute privilege.
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
Media Releases
- sc 11 2011 the attorney general v gow leigh (PDF, 54 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Substantive judgmen / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anthony Phillip Musson v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 55/2011
Summary
Civil – Fisheries levies – That the District Court erred in granting judgment to the Ministry of Fisheries against the appellant.Civ 2011 425 043
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the sum of $1500.00 plus disbursements.
27 June 2011.
Case name
RL And WL v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and others.
Case number
SC 2/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the High Court’s decision to strike out the appellant’s proceedings for judicial review but with restrictions; whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Treaty of Waitangi and other international human rights obligations. [2009] NZCA 596 CA 503/2008 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order for costs.
10 March 2009
Case name
R I G v Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Social Development and others
Case number
SC 90/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to waive security for costs for the applicant’s appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. [2010] NZCA 362 CA 261/2009 10 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 November 2010
Case name
Thin Thi Vu v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 101/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the appellant’s conviction and sentence for aiding and encouraging the illegal purchase of paua from an undercover fisheries officer - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the transfer of paua by an undercover fisheries officer to the appellant was not a transaction with the Crown for the purposes of s 192(10)(c) of the Fisheries Act 1996. [2010] NZCA 469 CA 375/2010 15 October 2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2010Page 7 of 8