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
Grant Stanley Nicholls v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 72/2012
Summary
[2012] NZCA 444  CA 566/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay to the respondent costs of $2,500, together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

14 December 2012
Case name
Mars New Zealand Limited v Roby Trustees Limited
Case number
SC 74/2012
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property– Trademarks – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 17(1)(a) and s 25(1)(b) and (c) – whether the Court of Appeal failed adequately to consider the ambit of the reputation in Mars’ “ OPTIMUM” brand in determining whether registration of Roby Trustees’ “Optimise Pro” brand would be likely to cause confusion for the purposes of s 17(1)(a) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating its test under s 17(1)(a) with those under s 25(1)(b) and (c) – whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly determined the principles applicable to fair and notional use and imperfect recollection in comparing the two trademarks under s 25(1)(b) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the likelihood of prejudice to Mars’ interests under s 25(1)(c). [2012] NZCA 450  CA 30/2012
Dates

The application for leave is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar are awarded to the respondent.

19 December 2012. 
Case name
West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal Limited, Soli Energy New Zealand Limited, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated.
Case number
SC 75/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14 – Declarations sought in the Environment Court as to whether the effect of the combustion of coal, extracted from particular mining proposals, on climate change is a relevant consideration under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Matter heard by Environment Court and High Court – All parties agree to an appeal straight to the Supreme Court – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court.[2012] NZHC  2156   CIV 2012 409 972
Result
Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment, is granted.  The approved ground of appeal is whether, under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the decision-makers in the consent proceedings were required or able to have regard to the effects on climate change of discharge of greenhouse gases arising from end use of coal that will be extracted if consent is upheld.
28 November 2012
________________
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
19 September 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 87 [19 September 2013] (PDF, 410 KB)
Supreme court decision
costs: WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 133 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court  Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530    CA 756/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
P v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) SC 87/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
P (SC 87/2012) v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 152 [19 December 2013 (PDF, 285 KB)
Case name
M v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 89/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – Bill of Rights Act 1990 ss 9, 19 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’ s case for being out of time – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no stand alone right to family life entitling the applicant, as a person currently applying for refugee status or for recognition as a protected person under the immigration Act 2009 but not holding permanent residence, to visits from his family – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s refusal to allow the applicant’ s wife and child (residing in Australia) to visit him in New Zealand was not cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment under s 9 of the Bill of Rights – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s decision not to extend its family reunification policy to family members of asylum seekers wanting entry into New Zealand was not in breach of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of “ethnic or national origins” under s 19 of the Bill of Rights. [2012] NZCA 489    CA 587/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
4 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION SC 89/2012 [4 March 2013] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
New Zealand Post Limited v Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Incorporated  and Linda Street
Case number
SC 91/2012
Summary
Employment – Holidays Act 2003, s 9(1)(b)(ii) and (3) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “relevant daily pay” – Whether unrostered overtime for postal delivery workers is to be included in the calculation of relevant daily pay as payments that “would have otherwise been received” – In which circumstances is the application of the “averaging formula” triggered.  [2012] NZCA 481   CA 327/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursement s to the respondent.
13 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED v POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED SC 91/2012 [13 March 2013] (PDF, 59 KB)
Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 
18 April 2013
________________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
KOVINANTIE VAHAFOLUA FUKOFUKA V R SC 95/2012 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
FUKOFUKA v R [2013] NZSC 77 [16 August 2013] (PDF, 150 KB)
Case name
Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 97/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a contentious or political purpose could not be a charitable purpose – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that purposes or activities carried on by the charity or its representatives or agents that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status even if only minor or ancillary.[2012] NZCA 533      CA 333/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Were the views expressed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment [2012] NZCA 533 at [55]-[68] and [96]-[97] of its reasons correct?
8 March 2013
____________________
A The appeal against the Court of Appeal’s determination that a political purpose cannot be a charitable purpose is allowed.
B The appeal against the Court of Appeal’ s determination that purposes or activities that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status is dismissed.               
C The matter of the charitable status of the objects of Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc is remitted to the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Charities Board for reconsideration in light of this decision.
D No order for costs is made.
6 August 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INC SC 97/2012 [8 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 105 [6 August 2014] (PDF, 360 KB)
Case name
Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc and another v Eric Meserve Houghton  and others
Case number
SC 100/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation periods – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees’ individual claims had been brought when the first respondent filed his claim on a representative basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees did not have to opt in to the proceedings before limitation periods expired in order to bring timely individual claims[2012] NZCA 545  CA204/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Are the claims of some or all of the shareholders represented by the First Respondent (Mr Houghton) time-barred by virtue of limitation provisions in the Limitation Act 1950 or the Fair Trading Act 1986? 8 April 2013 ____________________ The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the first respondent plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).  The appellants and the second and fourth respondents are liable jointly and severally for the costs and disbursements.  We certify for second counsel.

9 April 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC v ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON [2014] NZSC 37 [9 April 2014] (PDF, 436 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 15 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
HP v The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against Conviction – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no warning needed to be given to the jury in this case regarding allegedly unreliable evidence under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach in R v Taylor [2010] NZCA 69 to s 122 directions is correct –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce fresh evidence concerning the complainant.[2010] NZCA 617  CA 178/2010  16 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HP v R SC [18 March 2011] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 March 2011.
Page 52 of 78