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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 81/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 864/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- [2013] NZSC 102 (PDF, 13 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Sustain our Sounds v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 84/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area.[2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Sustain Our Sounds Incorporated for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated is granted. The question of law for determination on the appeal is:Was the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry that the key environmental effects of the plan change in issue would be adequately managed by the maximum feed discharge levels set in the plan and the consent conditions it proposed to impose in granting the resource consent to King Salmon one made in accordance with the Act and open to it?
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
18 October 2013
______________________________________________________
The appeal with regard to the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
17 April 2014
_______________________________________________
There is no order for costs.
Costs will lie where they fall.
19 November 2014.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 40 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Hearing
19 – 21 November 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Adrian James Leason, Peter Reginald Leo Murnane and Samuel Peter Frederick Land v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 131/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trespass – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation and application of the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by refusing to order a full trial in light of the assumed wrongful conduct given its obligations at international law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation or application of defence of another and/or necessity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to the interpretation and application of the law governing admissibility of additional evidence on appeal.[2013] NZCA 509 CA 642/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
5 February 2014.
Case name
Stephen Ross Tebbs v The Queen
Case number
SC 133/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether or not the blood sample relied on by the police was taken in accordance with “ normal medical procedure”
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TEBBS v R [2014] NZSC 16 [5 March 2014] (PDF, 51 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 March 2014
[2013] NZCA 523 CA 160/2013
Case name
Loktronic Industries Limited v Stephen John Diver and others
Case number
SC 32/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tort – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its statement of the test for the element of knowledge in the tort of inducing breach of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning findings of fact that were open to the trial judge and not plainly wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal imposed a more onerous duty on the appellant in its cross-examination of its witnesses at trial than is consistent with s 92(1) of the Evidence Act 2006. CA 258/2011 [2012] NZCA131
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,000 payable to each set of respondents making submissions.
24 July 2012.
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576 CA 787/2009 3 December 2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
- sc 4 2011 mandic lisa marie anor v cornwall park (PDF, 634 KB)
Media Releases
- media release mandic dohnt (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Liam James Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2011
Summary
Criminal appeal – application for leave to appeal out of time – possible fresh evidence.[2009] NZCA 281 CA 794/2008 7 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
REID v R SC 16/2011 [28 February 2012] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2012.
28 February 2012.
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v Lee Grace Sheridan
Case number
SC 23/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fees – Legal Services Act 2000 – Whether applicant entitled to payment of quantum meruit legal fees from respondent notwithstanding s 66 Legal Services Act – Whether respondent agreed to abandon legal aid grant in signing contingency-fee and fixed-fee agreements with respondent – Whether under s 66 permission must be sought from Legal Services Agency before suing for “top-up” of legal aid fees – Whether High Court summary judgment hearing unfair – Whether award of indemnity costs by High Court against applicant unwarranted.[2011] NZCA 15 CA 377/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MCGUIRE v SHERIDAN SC 23/2011 [13 April 2011] (PDF, 8 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,000 to the respondent.
13 April 2011
Case name
Jordan James Ataria v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Judge was entitled to determine particular matters of fact at the sentencing stage, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support those findings of fact – Whether the appellant’s sentence should be reduced on account of an alleged disparity with the sentence imposed on certain other offenders in this case[2010] NZCA 559 CA 120/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ATARIA v R SC 31/2011 [17 June 2011] (PDF, 29 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 June 2011.
17 June 2011.
Page 39 of 43