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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Hyun Su Park v Joong Song Kwak and Hye Sook Kwak, Andrew J Steele and Jarred Scott, Tim J Rainey and Jonathan Wood
Case number
SC 7/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, ss 93 and 95 – Whether the High Court and Court of Appeal erred in their approach to a second appeal under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act.
Result
A The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the third respondents.
9 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the third respondents.
9 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
PARK v KWAK & ANOR [2016] NZCA 574 8 December 2016 not available online _
Case name
Nicholas David Wright v Vijay Bhosale and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 8/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 21, 23 and 24(a) –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the intention required to obtain exemplary damages.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent. 9 May 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent. 9 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Chatfield & Co Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 9/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Discovery – s 10 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding documents exchanged pursuant to a Double Taxation Agreement were not discoverable in judicial review proceedings?
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 11 April 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 11 April 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited
Case number
SC 10/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2017 (PDF, 577 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 152 (PDF, 266 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark David Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 13/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Safety (Public Protections Orders) Act 2014, s 8 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the formulation of a threshold test for the granting of a public protection orders.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 620).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017
______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
13 April 2017
______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
1 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 June 2017 (PDF, 449 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 114 (PDF, 269 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
B v ALA
Case number
SC 18/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court erred in its application of confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted but the application for leave is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500. 26 April 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500. 26 April 2017
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 19/2017
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
5 April 2017
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
5 April 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ram Chander Dahiya v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 20/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal for an extension of time.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 8 May 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 8 May 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Justices Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan
Case number
SC 21/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant an extension of time for consideration of an application to dispense with security for costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
23 June 2017
____________________
A The judgment delivered on 29 June 2017 is recalled and re-issued.
B The application for review is dismissed.
C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
7 July 2017
16 May 2017
_______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
23 June 2017
____________________
A The judgment delivered on 29 June 2017 is recalled and re-issued.
B The application for review is dismissed.
C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
7 July 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2017 (PDF, 241 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 175 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 54 of 107