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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Rae Beverly Adlam v John Tionga Savage, Lawrence Te Aokahari Niao, Patrick Mayne Savage, Samuel Kelvin Barnes and Tamati Drawbridge as Trustees of the Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust; and Helen Maria Savage and Raelyn Arihia Peita as Trustees of
Case number
SC 120/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the order of the Māori Land Court requiring the applicant to account to the Bath Trust in the amount of $11,200,000. [2016] NZCA 454 CA223/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 124/2016
Summary
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.
Result
Judgment released.
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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
26 September 2017
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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
26 September 2017
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 29 March 2017
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.
Case name
Oraka Technologies Limited, Oraka Graders Limited and Michael William Schwarz v Napier Tool & Die Limited, Geostel Vision Limited and Paul Daynes and Gordon Robertson
Case number
SC 154/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that compensatory damages for breach of copyright could not be awarded to the applicant. CA 304/2016 [2016] NZCA 554
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 February 2017
_______________________________
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $750 to the first respondent and $750 to the second and third respondents, that is, $1,500 in total.
26 May 2017
20 February 2017
_______________________________
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $750 to the first respondent and $750 to the second and third respondents, that is, $1,500 in total.
26 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
Judgment (as to costs)
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Rapata Te Haa Rangitukunoa v John Pieter Koning and Hiria Rewti
Case number
SC 54/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. [2015] NZCA 24 CA 212/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rapata Leef and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Ngāti Taka v Colin Bidois and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Pirirakau
Case number
SC 62/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding waiver of conflict – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no process breach by the Arbitration Panel. [2015] NZCA 176 CA 441/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v SSC
Case number
SC 67/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admissions in response to police questioning – Whether exclusion of evidence is proportionate to the police impropriety. [2015] NZCA 241
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (C v R [2015] NZCA 241).The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to quash the High Court’s order that the latter part (commencing at 2.14 pm) of the interview between Mr C and the police on 28 March 2014 is admissible at his trial.
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
Date of hearing
10 December 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen
Case number
SC 115/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether a tailored demeanour direction should have been given at trial – Whether evidence of breach of a police safety order was admissible as propensity evidence and whether a “proper use” direction was required in respect of that evidence[2015] NZCA 434 CA 597/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:-no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and-evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 June 2016 (PDF, 477 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 121 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald
Case number
SC 124/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.[2015] NZCA 479 CA 251/2014
Result
A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Page 20 of 26