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
Derek Peter Wheeldon and Carol Ann Wheeldon, Anthony John Butcher and Ruth Barbara Rogers, Larry Lawrence Small and KM Trustees Services Limited, Ivor Anthony Millington and Neville Eade v Body Corporate 342525
Case number
SC 70/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 49(1) of the Building Act 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Building Code. [2016] NZCA 247 CA290/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 September 2016
14 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Auckland Council and James Hardie New Zealand v Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Body Corporate 19500, and Gefei Liang and Others
Case number
SC 72/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 is that the multi-unit complex claim does not need to independently meet the s 16(a) eligibility criterion for resolution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the 2006 Act is that all of the claimants represented in the multi-unit complex claim receive the benefit of the date the withdrawn claim was brought under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 for the purposes of s 37 of the 2006 Act.[2016] NZCA 256 CA552/2015, CA564/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Anthony Williams v Trevor Nelson Cameron and Robin Whalley and Richards Woodhouse
Case number
SC 78/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application for extension of time to appeal, on the basis that the applicant alleges that the respondents’ lawyers have acted in breach of Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [2016] NZCA 317 CA136/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 80 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dean James Charlton v The Queen
Case number
SC 102/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s conviction for rape. [2016] NZCA 212 CA452/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DEAN JAMES CHARLTON v R [2017] NZSC 5 9 February 2017 (PDF, 120 KB)
Judgment appealed from
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
James Gerard Mercer v Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 143/2016
Summary
[2016] NZCA 503 CA134/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except for the parties’ names and result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of proceedings either by the Minister of Justice or in the Queensland courts. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
16 March 2017
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except for the parties’ names and result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of proceedings either by the Minister of Justice or in the Queensland courts. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Colin James Dallas v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 14/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fair Trading Act 1986, s 9 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act.[2014] NZCA 631 CA 148/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Wellington City Council v Dallas [2014] NZCA 631). B The approved questions are: (a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to have found the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986? (b) If so, should the applicant have been held liable for 50 per cent of the respondent’s loss? 26 June 2015 ________________________ Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 11 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Bonfert v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Whether factual findings by Court of Appeal correct. [2012] NZCA 313 CA 26/2012: CA 124/2012
Result
The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
25 May 2015
25 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PETER BONFERT v R [2015] NZSC 69 25 May 2015 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ronald Peter Rosenberg v The Queen
Case number
SC 39/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentencing Judge properly considered the amends made by the applicant since conviction, whether a reparation order of $400,000 was justified and whether there was a significant inconsistency between the sentence of the applicant and the co-offender. [2015] NZCA 97 CA 345/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 July 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 13 of 22