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
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 2010
Case name
Audrey Bredmeyer v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 14/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - New Zealander living in Australia seeks payment of New Zealand superannuation – whether Article 9.3 of the Agreement on Social Security, Schedule 1 Social Welfare (Reciprocity with Australia) Order makes payment of New Zealand superannuation contingent on meeting the income test and asset test for Australian pensions – whether the social purpose behind the current Agreement on Social Security between New Zealand and Australia differs from previous agreements - whether the Court of Appeal accorded natural justice to the Appellant.[2008] NZCA 557 CA 666/2007 17 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent.
30 March 2009
Case name
RL  and WL v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and others.
Case number
SC 77/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Special Application to bypass Court of Appeal – Actual or apparent bias – Muir test – Whether High Court erred by failing to take into account international conventions – Whether Court acted unreasonably and failed to properly exercise its discretion.Civ 2007  404 7031 High Court Auckland 13 October 2008.
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Application for stay of judgment dimissed.

24 November 2008

Case name
F v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 17/2007
Summary
Civil – Appeal against decision to refuse a writ of habeas corpus in relation to the appellant’s child – whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the evidence before it – whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider international human rights documents. CA 97/07 7 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. 8 May 2007
Case name
DE; LW and CW v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 75/2007
Summary
Civil – appeal against decision refusing a writ of habeas corpus in relation to the first appellant’s child – Family Court issued, on an ex parte basis, an interim custody order under s 78 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 – whether the s 78 interim custody order was used in an unlawful manner. [2007] NZCA 451 CA 358/07 18 October 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

28 November 2007

Case name
Minister of Fisheries and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries v Antons Trawling Limited, Esperance Fishing Co Limited and Orneagan Developments Limited
Case number
SC 84/2007
Summary
Summary Civil – appeal from a Court of Appeal decision which granted interim relief to the Respondents against a decision, of the Minister of Fisheries, to reduce the Total Allowable Catch/Total Allowable Commercial Catch for an Orange Roughy fish stock – Applicant claims that the Court of Appeal erred in law, by failing to follow the test in Carlton & United Breweries v Minister of Customs [1986] 1 NZLR 423 when determining the scope of the remedy under s 8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the approach to be adopted – Applicant also claims that the Court of Appeal erred by granting interim relief in the absence of evidence, and by determining that any level of likely monetary loss was sufficient to meet the test of necessity. Application made for urgent hearing, given the practical consequences of the decision for the Orange Roughy population and the potentially wide-ranging effects of the decision on appeal. [2007] NZCA 512 CA 101/07 19 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 6 December 2007
Case name
Fiona Prasad v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 18/2006
Summary
Civil – social security – beneficiary owner and mortgagor of two flats on same property – beneficiary living in one flat and renting the other out – whether beneficiary’s “accommodation costs” encompasses total outgoings on the property, or only that portion of the outgoings referable to the flat occupied as a home – meaning of “premises” – Social Security Act 1964, s 61E CA 119/04 22 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed.
10 April 2006
Case name
Doreen Warnock & Combined Beneficiaries Union Inc v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 30/2006
Summary
Civil – social security – advances made to beneficiary for repair/maintenance of home – policy of the Department of Social Security (as it was then known) to charge interest on advances – whether the discretion to make advances “subject to such terms and conditions as the Director-General may determine” under Social Security Act 1964, s 125 empowers the Director-General to make an advance subject to the payment of interest where the payment of interest does not arise by necessary implication from the provisions of the Act – whether the interest component of an advance under s 125 was a tax – whether the Court of Appeal was in error to treat the common law approach to the charging of interest as being “not particularly helpful… in this particular instance.” CA 10/05 16 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed.
14 June 2006
Case name
Patricia Linda Owens v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 89/2006
Summary
Summary Civil – applicant in receipt of benefits paid by Work and Income – failure to declare interest in a flat which was rented out – applicant did not deliberately mislead WINZ – whether inequitable for WINZ to seek repayment of accommodation supplement – whether relative fault can be taken into account for the purposes of s 86(9A) Social Security Act 1964 – whether principles from common law change of position defence apply to s 86(9A).CA 131/05, CA 132/05 30 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1500 to respondent.
20 February 2007
Case name
The Attorney-General v QBE Insurance
Case number
SC 54/2005
Summary
Insurance - QBE insured Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under successive 12-month "claims-made" policies - circumstances giving rise to claim occurring under 1998-1999 policy, but claim made under subsequent policy - whether circumstances were notified, or required to be notified, to QBE before expiry of policy – whether QBE estopped from asserting that circumstances were notified, or required to be notified, before expiry - whether policies subject to implied term CA 174/04 3 August 2005
Result
Leave to appeal dismissed.
10 March 2006