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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation, Fullers Group Limited and Motutapu Island Restoration Trust
Case number
SC 11/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Conservation Act 1987 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that concessions to conduct guided tours over Rangitoto and Motutapu could be granted despite iwi objections.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2017] NZCA 613).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 August 2018 (PDF, 646 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 122 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
AN v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited and District Court at Manukau
Case number
SC 12/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in refusing to allow the applicant to file an application for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the applicant’s appeal should not be given precedence, per s 17(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. B No order as to costs. 19 March 2018 _____________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 22 March 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited, Arin Lal, Venkat Ram and Mahesh Parera
Case number
SC 24/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s claim for breach of copyright – Whether the Supreme Court should recall its decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
Result
A The applications for recall and for an extension of time for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
21 May 2018
B There is no award of costs.
21 May 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Recall judgment
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 25/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s claim for breach of copyright – Whether the Supreme Court should recall its decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
Result
A The applications for recall and for an extension of time for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
21 May 2018
B There is no award of costs.
21 May 2018
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Case name
Richina Pacfic Limited v Samson Corporation Limited and AAI Limited (formerley Vero Insurance Limited)
Case number
SC 44/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Interpretation of a standard form construction contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent.
8 August 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent.
8 August 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 47/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a replacement benefit payable under an insurance policy issued by the respondent was assignable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 68 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Hoani Clifford Cribb and Karen Lynne Stevens v FM Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 49/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trespass – Bailment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the respondent mortgagees were entitled to remove the applicants’ possessions from the property – Whether applicants liable for costs associated with removal and storage.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 October 2018
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 50/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the issue was whether counsel had properly advised the client about the risk and financial implications of litigation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dermont Gregory Nottingham v Auckland District Court, Hemi Taka, Martin Honey and Stephanie Honey
Case number
SC 73/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the decisions of the High Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500. 5 November 2018
B The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500. 5 November 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Hayley Dawn Young v The Attorney General and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)
Case number
SC 75/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the second respondent’s protest to jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the courts of England and Wales are the more appropriate forum for the applicant’s claim.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
6 March 2019
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
6 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 24 of 78