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
Anthony Harry De Vries v Bartercard Exchange Limited
Case number
SC 108/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to waive the filing fee for the appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 December 2017
____________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
2 February 2018
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 December 2017
____________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
2 February 2018
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
High Court decision
Case name
Iain McLennan and Boris Van Delden as Liquidators for Neil Timber Limited (In Liquidation) v Boris Livaja, Iwona Grazyna Kotowska-Livaja and Orion Trustee No.1 Limited
Case number
SC 112/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal in relation to an application that a caveat lodged against a residential property should not lapse.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents. 1 February 2018
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents. 1 February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Rapata (Robert) LEEF as representative of Ngati Taka v Colin BIDOIS as representative of Pirirakau, AND Jason AKE, Te Pio KAWE, Lance WAAKA, Robert URWIN, Kimiora RAWIRI, Philip HIKAIRO, Stephanie TAIAPA and Mikere WAIRUA as Trustees of Nga Hapu O Ngat
Case number
SC 113/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the arbitration agreement entered into by Ngāti Taka and Pirirakau replaced an earlier arbitration process agreed among the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the earlier agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deed of settlement entered into between representatives of all hapū of Ngāti Ranginui and the Crown is final and binding as between Ngāti Taka and Pirirakau.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the first respondent costs of $2,500
21 December 2017
B The applicant is to pay to the first respondent costs of $2,500
21 December 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Desmond James Albert Conway v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 119/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 and the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the applicant was mortgagor of vehicles repossessed by the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 February 2018
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 February 2018
High Court decision
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 132/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a judge has power to grant leave to the prosecutor to withdraw charges under s 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prior to a determination being made in the course of a pre-trial hearing under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as to a defendant’s involvement in terms of s 13(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge had not made any determination under s 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act.
Result
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
7 February 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Guirong Wen v Kok Ann Ngoi and Sunshine Estate Limited
Case number
SC 133/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a binding contract was formed.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
5 March 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
5 March 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GUIRONG WEN v KOK ANN NGOI [2018] NZSC 18 [5 March 2018] (PDF, 105 KB)
Case name
Manchester Securities Limited v Body Corporate 172108
Case number
SC 134/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal from a decision of the High Court varying a remediation scheme settled under s 48 of the Unit Titles Act 1972 and ordering the applicant to make an interim payment to the Body Corporate.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent. 14 March 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608 CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 June 2016 (PDF, 401 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617 CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 November 2016 (PDF, 575 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 113 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 30 of 78