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
New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited v Weller & Ors
Case number
SC 20/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 7A of the Holidays Act 1981. [2016] NZCA 19 CA 313/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
27 April 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
27 April 2016
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Anthony Pratt Kaye and Morva Kaye v Norris Ward McKinnon
Case number
SC 29/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents had not breached duty of care – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents had not caused the applicants any loss.
[2016] NZCA 32 CA333/2015
[2016] NZCA 32 CA333/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
15 June 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
15 June 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 32/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the applicant’s entitlement under the insurance policy issued by the respondent – Whether the applicant is entitled to relief from the parties’ settlement agreement under s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.[2016] NZCA 67 CA 400/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2016] NZCA 67).
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.
20 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
6 December 2016
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.
20 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
6 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 October 2016 (PDF, 838 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 158 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 33/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal Civil Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs. [2016] NZCA 78 CA 740/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
17 May 2016
17 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
HC judgment
HC judgment
Case name
Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 35/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002.[2016] NZCA 117 CA 129/2016
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 July 2016 (PDF, 372 KB)
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v Boon Gunn Hong
Case number
SC 37/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision was inconsistent with its statement of the issue – Whether principles governing appeals against the exercise of discretion were applied incorrectly.[2016] NZCA 75 CA 425/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 28 July 2016
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 28 July 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Augustine Lau v UMH Group Limited
Case number
SC 43/2016
Summary
Civil appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant an extension of time in which to appeal a High Court order extinguishing a land covenant. [2016] NZCA 132 CA692/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.
5 July 2016
B The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to the respondent.
5 July 2016
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 44/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 88B – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in expanding the scope of the order preventing the applicant from instituting civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court. [2016] NZCA 43 CA278/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent. 21 June 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent. 21 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and David Stuart Vance as Liquidators of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) and Petranz Limited (in liquidation) v Darrell Warren Karaneihana and Diana Joy Petera
Case number
SC 46/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 161– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into consideration that if the liquidators were successful that surplus funds would be returned to the directors and shareholders pursuant to Morgenstern v Jeffreys [2014] NZSC 176 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ss 131–138 are codification of directors’ duties. [2016] NZCA 103 CA198/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
Crocodile International PTE Limited v Lacoste
Case number
SC 47/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 7(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 7(1)(a) Trade Marks Act 2002. [2016] NZCA 111 CA607/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste [2016] NZCA 111).
B The approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court decision to set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks revoking trade mark 70068?
19 July 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. Registration of trade mark 70068 is revoked from 12 December 1999.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
C Costs in the courts below should be set by those courts in the light of this judgment, if they are not able to be agreed.
21 February 2017
B The approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court decision to set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks revoking trade mark 70068?
19 July 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. Registration of trade mark 70068 is revoked from 12 December 1999.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
C Costs in the courts below should be set by those courts in the light of this judgment, if they are not able to be agreed.
21 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 30 August 2016 (PDF, 582 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 14 (PDF, 293 KB)
Additional document
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 61 of 107