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 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law. [2012] NZCA 576 CA 360/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
12 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TURNER v DAVIS SC 7/2013 [12 April 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
James Patrick Gollan v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction and sentence – Crimes Act, ss 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no basis that the applicant was acting in defence of his home or property under s 55 or s 56 of the Crimes Act – Whether the force used was reasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to not allow a police job sheet to be admitted by putting it to a person who was not the author of it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to exclude an article from the Police Association journal – Whether the applicant had adequate facilities and opportunities to prepare a defence – Whether District Court judges should be required to minute all decisions relating to rulings within a trial.[2013] NZCA 29 CA580/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 56 [11 June 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 125 [18 November 2013] (PDF, 31 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 June 2013.
Case name
Worthy Redeemed (aka Lee Errol James Silvester) v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2013
Summary
Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit new evidence from Professor John Raine as it is alleged that the admission of this evidence might reasonably have resulted in different verdicts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the propensity evidence of Ryan Moore was admissible and that the trial Judge’s directions in relation to it were adequate. [2013] NZCA 61 CA 408/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 June 2013.
Case name
Brooks Homes Limited, My Refund Limited and Stephen Cavell Brooks v NZ Tax Refunds Limited
Case number
SC 37/2013
Summary
Interim injunction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where an appellate court disagrees with a lower court’s finding that there is no serious issue to be tried, the appellate court is then entitled and required to carry out its own assessment of the balance of convenience and the overall justice of the case.[2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 June 2013.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 June 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages. [2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 146 (PDF, 266 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcripts
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977 Civ 2012 404 3170
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
- Hearing date 18 March 2014 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Stephen John Lawler v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2013
Summary
Criminal – appeal against sentence – appeal against conviction - whether the Court of Appeal erred in not calling for further reports regarding the applicant’s fitness to stand trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions and the sentence of preventive detention – whether the Court of Appeal rightly refused a recusal application.[2012] NZCA 308 CA 777/2010; CA 655/2012; CA 656/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAWLER v R [2013] NZSC 92 [3 October 2013] (PDF, 70 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined.
3 October 2013
Case name
Fences and Kerbs Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 80/2013
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 773/2012
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
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
Page 39 of 44